Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ). Petitioner has in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed for quashing of communications annexure F dated 10. 2. 1993 and subsequent communications dated 26. 2. 1993 and 26. 3. 1993 (Annexure K ). In nutshell the petitioner s grievance is against the action of the respondent in declining to act on the withdrawal of petitioner s resignation which according to the petitioner had been conveyed to the respondent before acceptance of the resignation. Petitioner s case is that resignation was tendered to an incompetent authority and it was not a valid resignation and in any case its acceptance, irrespective of its withdrawal on 10. 2. 1993, was by an incompetent authority and as such the same is non-est.

( 2 ). Facts in brief are that the petitioner, a permanent and confirmed employee of Air India and posted as Traffic Assistant at Delhi, on 3. 2. 1993 submitted his resignation with immediate effect bysending a telegram annexure B addressed to the Manager- Northern India, Air India, Himalaya House, New Delhi. It was followed by a letter dated 8. 2. 1993 (annexure C), which affirmed the tendering of resignation from the service of the Corporation effective from the date of telegram. It was stated that the resignation was being tendered due to personal reasons with a request to accept the same. It is the petitioner s case that the telegram was sent by him in a state of panic when he was in grave mental tension and it was under the same tense condition that letter of 8. 2. 1993 was sent by him. On the very next day, namely, 9. 2. 1993 the petitioner withdrew his resignation by sending telegram annexure D, which was followed by letter annexure E dated 11. 2. 1993. There has been no acceptance of the resignation tendered by the petitioner till the telegram annexure D and letter annexure E were sent and duly communicated to the respondents. As such the resignation stood withdrawn before it could be accepted. It is also stated that the resignation was not addressed to the competent authority. The Customer Relations Manager (Smt. Gian Claire) respondent No. 2 had compelled the petitioner to tender resignation under threat of being transferred outside Delhi. Petitioner had tendered his resignation to the Manager - Northern India. He was not the competent authority under the Rules. Competent Authority, according to the statutory rules, is the Commercial Director stationed at Bombay. As such the resignation letter itself was a nullity. It is alleged that letters, annexure F, purporting to be dated 10. 2. 1993 and 12. 2. 1993 respectively were despatched by the respondent to the petitioners only on 26. 2. 1993, signed by the second respondent and thus by pre-dating letters annexure F as 10. 2. 1992 and 12. 2. 1993 by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner s resignation had been accepted before receipt of the withdrawal thereof is a malafide act on the part of the respondents. This purported acceptance of the resignation which was withdrawn by the petitioner through telegram on 9. 2. 1993 which was received by the respondents on 10. 2. 1993 is a nullity and bad in law. It is also stated that after the resignation was withdrawn by the petitioner by sending telegram annexure D on 9. 2. 1993 the petitioner had also personally delivered in the respondents Delhi office letter annexure E on 11. 2. 1993. Thereafter on 12. 2. 1993 and 15. 2. 1993 the petitioner reported for duty but was advised to wait for formal orders. Finding no response the petitioner faxed copy of the letter annexure E dated 11. 2. 1993 to Bombay office on 15. 2. 1993 and also gave a representation annexure G dated 15. 2. 1993 and submitted further representations annexure H dated 18. 2. 1993, Annexure I dated 23. 2. 1993 and annexure J, dated 2. 3. 1993. In response to which through letter dated 25. 3. 1993 (annexure K), the petitioner was in- formed that his resignation had been accepted on 10. 2. 1993 before the receipt of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document