SUNIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order made in SWP No. 1066/2000, dated 05.04.2004 wherein the appellant has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.04.2000 and 12.03.1999 passed by the Commandant 66 Bn, BSF, and for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for re -instatement from the date he was struck off from the strength of the Unit w.e.f. 31.03.1999 and to pay him all service benefits including seniority. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed on 12.06.1987 as Constable and was allotted No. 87003340. The appellant underwent training at Hazari Bagh, Bihar and he was posted in 43 Bn initially and thereafter was transferred to 66 Bn. The appellant rendered unblemished record of service. Due to domestic problem the appellant filed an application under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, seeking voluntary retirement along with pensionary benefits allegedly in terms of Government Order dated 27.12.1995, which stated that the BSF personnel who have completed more than 10 years of service are entitled for retirement along with pensionary benefits. The respondents vide order dated 12.03.1999 accepted the resignation of the appellant without pensionary benefits and struck of the appellant from the strength of the Unit w.e.f. 31.03.1999 and he was discharged on 31.03.1999. According to the appellant, before his name was struck off, the appellant on 15.02.1999 and on 22.03.1999 had sent a representation by registered post seeking withdrawal of his resignation and he has also filed an application for interview with the Commandant. Again on 25.04.1999 the wife of the appellant requested for reinstatement of the appellant by contending that the appellant has already made a representation seeking withdrawal of his resignation.

(2.) IT is the contention of the appellant that the application for withdrawal of the resignation having been made before expiry of 90 days from the date of rendering resignation, the acceptance of the resignation letter on 12.03.1999, i.e. before the expiry of 90 days, cannot be put against him. On the above ground the appellant prayed to quash the order and the learned Single Judge, considering the counter affidavit filed and the record produced before him, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant has not submitted the withdrawal letter before his resignation was accepted on 12.03.1999 nor before he was relieved on 31.03.1999.

(3.) IN answer to the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the entire original record maintained by the respondents including resignation letter, acceptance letter, giving personal hearing, relieving order and the application submitted by the appellant after his discharge that was dated 30.06.1999.