IMPORTANT POINT
The acceptance of resignation based on medical grounds and the entitlement to relief after acceptance of resignation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order of acceptance of resignation dated 29.10.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and for issuance of direction to reinstate the petitioner in service.

2. Short facts of the present petition are that the petitioner appointed as Armed Police Constable on 21.03.2001 and joined the service and training and he was transferred from Patan to Rajkot and after initiation of departmental inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from the services. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.4978 of 2009 for reinstatement him on service and, thereafter, he was reinstated in service and resumed his duty. It is the case of the petitioner that after reinstating in service, he was suffering from back pain and taking treatment and, therefore, he requested the respondent – authority to give him work in the office of LIB as he is studied upto LL.B (Special). That due to mental harassment and torture, the petitioner has given resignation and, thereafter, he made a representation to respondent No.3 and requested to orderly room considering his sickness, however, the respondent No.3 has not considered the representation and, thereafter, the respondent – authority has sanctioned his resignation. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard Mr.Hardik Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State Authority. Perused the material on record.

4. Mr.Hardikh Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Armed Police Constable and he joined service and, thereafter, he was transferred from Patan to Rajkot. He has submitted that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was dismissed from the service and, thereafter, he had preferred Special Civil Application No.4978 of 2014 and though he was reinstated in service, he resumed his duty. He has submitted that since the petitioner was suffering from back pain, he requested respondent No.3 to give him work in office of L.I.B. and he has tendered his resignation, however, under such circumstances, he made representation for cancellation of resignation before accepting his resignation by the Government, he wrote a letter for withdrawal of his resignation, however, the same came to be rejected. He has submitted that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the respondent – authority be quashed and set aside.

5. Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State Authority has opposed the present petition. She has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3. She has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Armed Police Constable and joined the services and after completion of training he was serving at Patan. She has submitted that Since, the petitioner wanted to resign from the service, he tendered resignation without any force or compulsion and the same was accepted. She has submitted that the petitioner had made a request for withdrawal of the resignation, but the same came to be rejected as per the Gujarat Civil Services General Condition of the Services Rules. She has submitted that in the resignation, the petitioner has specifically stated that if this resignation is not accepted he will take steps to take judicial resources available under the law. She has submitted that the petitioner had never made any complaint to his superior with regard to harassment by his colleague. She has submitted that there is no reasons to reconsider his case as once the resignation has been accepted and affected the same cannot be reconsidered and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent – authority is just and