Back
2001 Supreme(Cal) 195
High Court Of Calcutta
Mahemmad Habeeb Shams Ansari
SISIR KUMAR DUTTA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. O. 9122 Of 1996
Decided On : 04/06/2001
ARVNAVA GHOSH, NIRANJAN GANGULY, SUDHAN G.SUSIL, UJJAL K.DAS
The resignation of an employee of a Government-owned company is of a bilateral character, requiring acceptance by the employer. The refusal to accept the resignation must be for valid reasons, and one such valid reason is the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry against the employee.
Headnote:
RESIGNATION - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE - UNILATERAL ACT OR BILATERAL CHARACTER - ACCEPTANCE BY EMPLOYER - REFUSAL OF ACCEPTANCE - VALID REASONS - DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY PENDING - LEGALITY - WRIT - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a Government-owned company, submitted his resignation due to grievances and perceived lack of promotion opportunities. The resignation was not accepted by the employer on the ground that a disciplinary inquiry was contemplated against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the resignation of an employee of a Government-owned company is of a bilateral character, requiring acceptance by the employer. The refusal to accept the resignation must be for valid reasons, and one such valid reason is the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry against the employee.
Issues: 1. Whether the resignation of an employee of a Government-owned company is a unilateral act or a bilateral character requiring acceptance by the employer? 2. Whether the refusal to accept the resignation must be for valid reasons? 3. Whether the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry against the employee is a valid reason for refusing to accept the resignation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Moti Ram v. Param Dev and Anr. and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly to hold that the resignation of an employee of a Government-owned company is of a bilateral character, requiring acceptance by the employer. 2. The court held that the refusal to accept the resignation must be for valid reasons, as an employer cannot arbitrarily refuse to accept an employee's resignation. 3. The court held that the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry against the employee is a valid reason for refusing to accept the resignation, as it would allow the employee to escape the consequences of an adverse finding in the inquiry.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order rejecting/refusing the letter of resignation on the ground of disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner was not legally infirm.
( 1 ) THOUGH several reliefs have been prayed for at the time of hearing, they have been confined to the prayers 'c' and 'd' as on 31st January, 2001 petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The prayers 'c' and 'd' read as under;" (C) To issue a writ of and/or writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the Respondent-Authority was bound to accept the resignation of the petitioner in accordance with Law and thereby release him from the service of the Corporation for joining other concerned. (d) To issue a writ of and/or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned Respondent or Respondents to pay damages to the petitioner by way of making good the financial loss suffered by him for not being released from the service of the Corporation either under the scheme of voluntary retirement or upon acceptance of his utter of resignation dated 6th of December, 1995. "
( 2 ) FACTS to the extent relevant for purposes of enquiry in the matter on hand are as under.
( 3 ) THE petitioner had joined as Deputy General Manager (Purchase) under National Textile Corporation (W. B. A. B. O.) hereinafter referred to as respondent corporation on 7th January, 1981. He served the respondent corporation in various capacities during his tenure of service. It is the case of the petitioner that he became entitled to be considered for promotion in the post of General Manager on completion of his three years as Deputy General Manager. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to such promotion to the aforesaid post of General Manager in the year 1984. However, petitioner was not promoted while according to the petitioner several persons including some direct recruits were granted such promotions including Sri S. K. Saha, S. N. Tripathi and several others who are said to be juniors to the petitioner were appointed. The petitioner had been transferred which according to him was a defunct unit at Gaya and was asked to report for his duties even without being allowed joining time therefor on 1st July, 1995. The petitioner made an application for availing of the joining time from 3rd of July to 10th July, 1995 and came to Calcutta. During his stay at Calcutta, petitioner fell ill and sought extension of medical leave. According to the petitioner, he came to know that his leave for the period from 11. 7. 95 to 10. 9. 95 was duly sanctioned. On 5th December, 1995, the petitioner received a letter dated 27th November, 1995 asking the petitioner to appear before a Medical Board on 11th December, 1995 at 10. 30 a. m. According to the petitioner, there is no provision of law whereby the petitioner could be compelled to appear before the Medical Board. The petitioner states that left without any choice, petitioner was compelled to tender his resignation from the service of the corporation by a letter dated 6th November, 1995 recording therein his specific grievances as the reasons behind taking the aforesaid decision for such resignation. In reply, the petitioner was informed by a letter-dated 16/24th November 1995 that his resignation could not be accepted on the ground of contemplated disciplinary action against him.
( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations have been traversed. It has been specifically denied that the unit at Gaya is a defunct unit. It has further been denied that the petitioner was denied the joining time as alleged during the period 13th December, 1994 to 1st July, 1995. The petitioner had very poor attendance out of 199 days of his tenure. The petitioner was physically present for only 25 days. The petitioner used to leave Headquarters and place of posting without express order from the competent authority despite being advised in writing not to leave Headquarters without permission. As regards the leave application of the petitioner, it is stated that since the petitioner was not reporting for duties on the ground of sickness, two officers were sent to the
