Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
Saugata Roy - Appellant
Versus
PEC Ltd. - Respondent
LPA 407o f 2018
Decided On : 30-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Viraj R. Datar and Mr Nitish Chaudhary, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sageen Narula and Mr. Krish Kalua, Advs.
An employee's resignation during pending disciplinary proceedings may be withheld by the employer to prevent the employee from escaping the consequences of adverse findings.
Headnote:
resignation - employment dispute - PEC Limited Employees’ (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal), Rules 1975 - summary of the legal framework applied by the court
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of a public sector undertaking, tendered his resignation during pending disciplinary proceedings. The respondent opposed the resignation, citing the possibility of the appellant escaping the consequences of adverse findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the appeal by directing the respondent to keep the resignation on record, withhold the appellant's dues, and require the appellant to report for further proceedings if necessary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's resignation should be accepted during pending disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the possibility of the appellant escaping the consequences of adverse findings and directed the respondent to withhold the appellant's dues until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal and all applications were disposed of, and the writ petition filed by the appellant was treated as not pressed.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
No. 30044/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA 407/2018 and CM No. 30043/2018 (ad-interim relief)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide which the prayer seeking interim relief has been rejected. Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the respondent, has entered appearance. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant has been employed for the last 14 years with the respondent-company which is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India and under the administrative contract of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent company has been suffering loss and currently the net worth of the company is in the negative. Also, the respondent-company has been declared as a Non-Performing Assets (NPA).
3. In the year 2016, a memorandum was issued to the appellant who was charged with professional misconduct under Rule 5 of the PEC Limited Employees’ (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal), Rules 1975. Thereafter, an inquiry was initiated which we are informed has been concluded although the disciplinary proceedings are still pending. The appellant had meanwhile tendered his resignation on 05.04.2018 which has not been accepted and is the subject matter of writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge.
4. Mr. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant has been offered a job and the time has been extended up till 31.07.2018, after which the employer is likely to withdraw their offer made to the appellant. Mr. Datar submits that the appellant is conscious of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings have not yet reached its conclusion. Accordingly, on instructions, appellant is willing to make a statement that the appellant will not claim any monetary benefits which may accrue to him on his resignation till the disciplinary proceedings are finally concluded. Mr. Datar also submits that the main aim and objective of the appellant is not in any way to escape the consequences of any adverse order which may be passed against him but to secure a job for himself and his family whom he has to support. Mr. Datar also relies strongly on decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 633/2017 titled as Tarun Saxena vs PEC Limited & Ors. Reliance is placed on paragraphs 5 and 6, which we reproduce below:-
“5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioner’s resignation dated 25.10.2016 would stand accepted by the respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 1, as agreed to by the petitioner, will not be liable to ay and monetary emoluments or monetary amounts to the petitioner for services rendered by the petitioner with the respondent No. 1 except the petitioner’s contribution to the provident fund, and which amount will be reimbursed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. If respondent No. 1 feels that besides the amounts already available of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1 and other amounts are due from the petitioner, then, of course, the respondent No. 1 will be at liberty in accordance with law to file appropriate independent proceedings in which the defences of the petitioner also would be considered that petitioner was not liable and petitioner was not guilty of any negligence as is the case of the petitioner.
6. It is also observed that in case in the departmental proceedings against the petitioner which have been initiated, the petitioner is not found guilty or petitioner is found guilty only to the extent of releasing the particular amount which is a lesser amount than the amount payable by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner on account of services rendered b
