Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
L. Narayana Swamy, J.
S.D.Manohara, S/O Late S.R.Dankanachar – Petitioner
Versus
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.50662 Of 2014
Decided On : 16-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.Venugopal M.S., Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri.Omkar Kambi, Adv. For Naik & Naik Law Firm
Headnote:
Post as regular employee - Continue in service – Employment and service - whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective - Brief facts of case are that petitioner submitted his resignation to his job – Junior Engineer with Respondent Corporation with a request to consider same at expiry of one month - Resignation was not accepted at expiry of one month as mentioned in resignation letter - Petitioner continued to work in post as regular employee - It was intimated that letter of resignation submitted by petitioner was accepted with effect from relieving date was not mentioned - wife of petitioner submitted letter to first respondent requesting to cancel resignation and allowing petitioner to continue his services - Respondent Corporation issued letter to petitioner for reporting duty as petitioner was absent from duty by obtaining casual leave for two days - Petitioner reported for duty Again wife of petitioner submitted another letter requesting Corporation to withdraw resignation submitted by petitioner – Held, But where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment his services normally stand terminated from date on which letter of resignation is accepted by appropriate authority and in absence of any law or rule governing conditions of his service to contrary it will not be open to public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by appropriate authority - Till resignation is accepted by appropriate authority in consonance with rules governing acceptance public servant concerned has locus penitential but not thereafter - Undue delay in intimating to public servant concerned action taken on letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted - In present case resignation was accepted within a short time after it was received by Government of India - Apparently State of Rajasthan did not immediately implement order and relieve appellant of his duties but appellant cannot profit by delay in intimating acceptance or in relieving him of his duties - In present case resignation which was submitted with a request to accept it at expiry of one month was stated to have been accepted only - There is undue delay in accepting resignation by respondents - In above decision delay of mere days in communicating acceptance of resignation is held to be not an undue delay so as to infer that resignation had not already been accepted - Therefore decision in case is also of no help to respondents - In circumstances court of view that petitioner having submitted his letter seeking to withdraw resignation much before effective with official order by which petitioner was relieved of his duties withdrawal of resignation ought to have been accepted by respondents and continued petitioner in service- Contrary decision by respondents by communication that withdrawal of resignation is not accepted and decision accepting resignation stands good is not sustainable in law - If resignation had been accepted with effective date mentioned therein things would have been different - In none of decisions relied upon by respondents effective date is dealt with - Writ petition is allowed
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved of the communication dated 23.06.2014 bearing No.KR/KW/REN/STAFF/08 issued by the Respondent No.3 – Regional Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Shirvad, Karwar – 581 306 by which withdrawal of resignation was not accepted and decision accepting the resignation was stated to hold good.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner submitted his resignation on 05.12.2013 to his job – Junior Engineer with the Respondent Corporation with a request to consider the same at the expiry of one month. The resignation was not accepted at the expiry of one month as mentioned in the resignation letter. The petitioner continued to work in the post as regular employee. On 15.04.2014 it was intimated that letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted with effect from 07.04.2014. The relieving date was not mentioned. On 17.04.2014 wife of the petitioner submitted letter to the first respondent requesting to cancel resignation and allowing petitioner to continue his services. On 10.05.2014 the respondent Corporation issued letter to the petitioner for reporting duty as the petitioner was absent from duty by obtaining casual leave for two days. The petitioner reported for duty on 19.05.2014. Again on 20.05.2014 wife of the petitioner submitted another letter requesting the Corporation to withdraw the resignation submitted by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner submitted letter on 26.05.2014 withdrawing the resignation submitted earlier. He has stated therein that in view of his work at Karwar, he had taken residence at Karwar on lease and joined his child to school there. Since the petitioner was not relieved from duties till the end of May, petitioner had to continue the lease and continue his child in the same school. In view of these changed circumstances, petitioner submitted letter on 26.05.2014 withdrawing the resignation submitted by him earlier. It is stated, head of his department orally communicated to the petitioner that his withdrawal of resignation is accepted. The petitioner was subjected to competency test to take charge of Engineering Block and competency certificate was issued declaring that he is competent to take Engineering Block by a certificate dated 5.6.2014. On 23.06.2014 the petitioner received letter from the Corporation communicating that request of the petitioner for withdrawal of resignation is not accepted. The petitioner was relieved of his duties from 1.7.2014. By way of office order dated 15.07.2014 vide NE/25/2014 the Corporation officially relieved him from duties. Even though resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014, the petitioner was not relieved from duty and only relieved on 15.07.2014. His letter to withdraw the resignation was much earlier to his relieving order. Therefore, it is stated, rejection order is bad in law.
4. The respondents have filed statement of objections and also additional statement of objections denying the various averments made in the writ petition but admitting the fact that petitioner had submitted letter dated 26.5.2014 to withdraw his resignation letter, which is stated to be after acceptance of the resignation. The respondents wanted to assert certain things and tried to make out a case against the petitioner that his services with the corporation were not blemishless it is also admitted that petitioner was relieved on 01.7.2014 and issuance of official order to relieve him with effect from 15.7.2014 is not denied. This court is concerned with validity of the order communicating the petitioner that his letter to withdraw the resignation is not accepted and decision to accept the resignation holds good. Hence it is not necessary to record the other averments made in the statement of objections and as also in the additional statement of objections.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned communicat
