For the Respondent(s) :Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Date of Hearing :22.04.2025 Date of Judgment :22.04.2025 J & O UDGMENT RDER (O RAL )

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appears for the State respondent on call.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing, inter-alia, the impugned provisional release order dated 15.02.2020 and the subsequent impugned letter dated 10.06.2020.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was serving under the respondent No.2 which is an undertaking of the Government of Assam, initially as Engineer (Mechanical) and later on with effect from 16.04.2019 in the higher grade of Senior Engineer (Mechanical). However, the petitioner being occasionally absent from duty since December, 2019, he was served with a charge sheet dated 15.02.2020 on the allegation that he is habitually late and irregular in attending his duties. Thereafter, on the same date itself i.e. 15.02.2020, the petitioner submitted a resignation letter and on the same date itself the respondent No.2 issued a provisional release order. However, later on the petitioner on 16.05.2020 submitted a letter to the respondent No.2 requesting him to rejoin his service with apology for his actions. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the respondent No.2 instead of revoking the provisional release order, by letters dated 21.05.2020 and 10.06.2020 directed the petitioner to refund 3 (three) month salary and to he was no longer in deposit the company’s equipments as service since 16.02.2020. Situated thus, the the company’s present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has provisionally accepted the resignation request of the petitioner subject to conditions and since the petitioner before issuance of the final release order has withdrawn his request for voluntary resignation made earlier, the respondent No.2 ought to have allowed the petitioner to rejoin the service and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent No.2 to treat the impugned provisional release order as final release order is illegal. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:-

i. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia reported in (1997) 4 SCC 280 ii. Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.

reported in (2005) 8 SCC 314

5. Per contra, Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that once the letter of resignation of an employee has been accepted by the employer, it will not be open to the employee to withdraw his resignation. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:-

i. Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1968) 3 SCR 857.

ii. North Zone Cultural Centre Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in AIR 2003 SC 2719.

6. He further submits that letter of resignation dated 15.02.2020 was admittedly voluntarily tendered by the petitioner himself immediately upon receipt of notice of charge-sheet dated 15.02.2020. He further submits that the petitioner instead of replying to the charge-sheet, tendered his unilateral and voluntary resignation. He further submits that the petitioner has not cited and or invoked any rule and or provision whatsoever, governing the conditions of service and employment as made applicable to the respondent No.2, which confers upon the petitioner a right to be reinstated in service/employment after the resignation of the employee has been accepted by the employer and or has taken effect. He further submits that letter of resignation dated 15.02.2020 was processed and accepted by respondent No.2 on the same date by issuing the provisional release lett