JUDGMENT :

RAJAN GUPTA, J.

Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2019

This application has been filed by the appellants, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in preferring the present Appeal i.e. L.P.A. No. 1389 of 2019 against the judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3319 of 2019.

2. Having considered the reasons assigned in the present petition seeking condonation of delay, in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal, and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing of the appeal. Consequently, the delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal is hereby condoned.

3. I.A. No. 1 of 2019 stands disposed of.

Re: L.P.A. No. 1389 of 2019

4. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred calling in question the legal sustainability of the judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3319 of 2019.

5. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant-writ petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3319 of 2019, inter alia, praying therein for quashing the order dated 06.08.2018 issued by the Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, affirming the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated 24.01.2017, for quashing the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the General Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the services of the Bank on the post of Branch Manager as also to pay him arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.

6. The factual scenario as emerges is that the appellant, while serving with the respondent Bank as an officer, had submitted his resignation on 28.07.2016, however, subsequently he had given an application dated 21.11.2016, withdrawing his resignation, nonetheless, since the respondents did not accept the resignation of the appellant, even after notice period was over, the appellant thought that his resignation has not been accepted, hence, he had gone to the Maura Branch of the respondent Bank for the purposes of joining his duty, but he was estopped from doing so on the ground that he has already tendered his resignation from the service of the Bank. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank had replied to the letter of the Appellant dated 21.11.2016 vide letter dated 28.11.2016 stating therein that the appellant had breached the terms of regulations pertaining to resignation by not complying the same and had not withdrawn his resignation within the period of notice but after serving of the letter by the Bank dated 05.11.2016, hence the issue of re-joining the Bank is no longer feasible. The appellant has then moved this Court by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 20422 of 2016, inter alia praying therein for restraining the respondent Bank from accepting the resignation and directing them to allow the appellant to joint his duty, however, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent Bank had issued the impugned order dated 24.01.2017, terminating the services of the appellant. In such view of the matter, the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 01.05.2018 with a direction to the Chairman of the respondent Bank to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said judgment. It appears that thereafter, the Chairman of the respondent Bank, by the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 had affirmed the order of termination of the services of the appellant and had rejected the appeal of the appellant herein.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant herein Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar has submitted that the communication of the respondent Bank dated 19.9.2016 and the letter dated 5.11.2016 would show that the respondent Bank had informed the appellant herein that his resignation cannot be accepted in view of certain dues being outstanding a