Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
D. Seshadri Naidu, J.
V. Madhumohan - Appellants
Vs.
The Chairman - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1977 of 2006
Decided On: 26.02.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:B. Tara Sujathan, Advocate and A. Hanumantha Reddy
For Respondents/Defendant: G. Ramachandra Rao
An employee's resignation is not automatic and may be subject to the employer's acceptance, but the employer must provide a valid reason for rejecting the resignation. Implied acceptance of a resignation can be inferred from the employer's conduct, such as addressing communications to the employee at their new place of employment and threatening to take up the matter with their new employer.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - RESIGNATION - ACCEPTANCE - IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE - NOTICE PERIOD - PAYMENT IN LIEU OF NOTICE - MISCONDUCT - FINANCIAL LOSS - ADJUSTMENT OF DUES - MINOR MISCONDUCT - ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - RULES AND REGULATIONS - INTERPRETATION - EMPLOYEE COVENANTS - SCRUTINY - WEAK BARGAINING POWER OF EMPLOYEES - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO EMPLOYEES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of the respondent company, submitted his resignation to join the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The company, alleging misconduct and financial loss due to the petitioner's actions, initiated disciplinary proceedings and eventually dismissed him from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, arguing that his resignation was effective immediately and that the company had impliedly accepted it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's resignation was not automatic and that the company had the right to reject it under Rule 35.A of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977. However, the court found that the company had not provided any valid reason for rejecting the resignation and that the alleged misconduct was minor and did not result in any actual financial loss to the company.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's resignation was effective immediately or subject to the company's acceptance. 2. Whether the company had impliedly accepted the petitioner's resignation. 3. Whether the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and caused financial loss to the company.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's resignation was not automatic and that the company had the right to reject it under Rule 35.A of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977. However, the court found that the company had not provided any valid reason for rejecting the resignation and that the alleged misconduct was minor and did not result in any actual financial loss to the company. 2. The court held that the company had impliedly accepted the petitioner's resignation by addressing communications to him at his new place of employment and by threatening to take up the matter with his new employer if he failed to recover certain dues. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not guilty of misconduct and that the alleged financial loss was adjusted from the receivables due to the dealer.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the dismissal order, and declared that the petitioner's resignation was accepted by the company on the date it was submitted. The court also directed the petitioner to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice to the company.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
1. The petitioner, having served the respondents company, resigned from his post and joined as an Agricultural Officer in the department of Agriculture, the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Holding that the petitioner left the respondent company without having his resignation accepted and that he was also guilty of misconduct of causing financial loss to the respondent company by providing stock to one particular dealer in his territory over and above the sanctioned limit, the respondent company initiated disciplinary proceedings. Eventually, the petitioner was dismissed from service through an order dated 02.07.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority- When even the intra-departmental appeal proved futile, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
2. The facts in brief are that on 13.09.1995 the petitioner joined the service of the respondent company as a Sales Officer in the Marketing Division located in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having served the company for a few years, he obtained an experience certificate and also no objection certificate from the respondent company with a view to applying to a suitable post in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. After obtaining those certificates, the petitioner applied for the post of Agricultural Officer in the department of Agriculture, Government of A.P. On selection, the petitioner submitted his resignation letter on 18.12.2002 to the respondent company stating that he had to report to duty in the department of his new employer on 23.12.2002 and that his resignation might to treated to have come into force from the very date of his submitting the letter of resignation, i.e., 18.12.2002.
3. In the manner stated in the letter of resignation, the petitioner went ahead and joined the services of his new employer, incidentally Government of A.P., on 23.12.2002. Later, on 04.03.2003 the 5th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to recover from a dealer an amount of Rs. 6,46,000/- said to be due from him. To expatiate on this aspect, it could be seen that while the petitioner was in the service of the respondent company, he is alleged to have allowed one of the dealers in his territory to draw stock in excess of his sanctioned limit. It appears from record that this communication was followed up with further directions to the petitioner to ensure the recovery of the amount from the dealer. Eventually, on 11.09.2003 the respondent company issued to the petitioner a memo of charges alleging that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct on two counts: that he absented himself from duty without leave and that he failed to recover the amounts due from the dealer and thus caused pecuniary loss to the respondent Company.
4. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted on 23.09.2003 by the petitioner, the respondent Company went ahead with the departmental enquiry. It appears that, despite notice, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Eventually, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.03.2004. Though it was held by the Enquiry Officer that the first charge concerning not recovering the amounts due from the dealer was not proved, the Disciplinary Authority, however, differed on the said finding and issued the final show cause notice dated 22.04.2004 holding that both charges stood proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority issued final show-cause notice seeking the explanation from the petitioner. In any event, despite the explanation submitted, by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major punishment of dismissal from service through its order dated 02.07.2004. On appeal, the appellate authority, through an order dated 09.01.2006, confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, thereby dismissing the intra-departmental appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel
