AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, dated 27.12.2001 vide
which representation of the Petitioner, dated 30.11.2001 was ordered to be rejected.
The Petitioner has also challenged the order, dated 27.07.2003 vide which his request for re-employment was rejected, by recording that he
had already been informed about the rejection of his request, in view of acceptance of his resignation.
The Petitioner thereafter approached the Legal Services Authority, and in response thereto, the Petitioner was again informed, that in view of the
acceptance of his resignation, he could not claim re-employment. He was directed to fill the requisite forms for release of Provident Fund etc.
The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground that it was not open to the Respondents to relieve the Petitioner after his
resignation was rejected, and on the ground that the appointing authority in the case of Petitioner was Respondent No. 2, therefore, orders passed
by the Respondent No. I were without jurisdiction.
The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the Petitioner was transferred to the Thirumanur Beat on 26.12.1999. In pursuance to his
transfer, he joined the new place of posting where he found the trees standing were not in good condition, but while handing over the charges to
the Petitioner all the trees, were stated to be in good condition.
The Petitioner being aggrieved by handing over of unhealthy trees filed a complaint with the higher authorities. Instead of taking action on the
complaint, the Petitioner was place under suspension and was issued with a charge-memo alleging
(a) absence from duty
(b) Insubordination
While under suspension, the Petitioner submitted resignation on 29.01.2001. On receipt of the resignation letter, the Petitioner was reinstated in
service on 02.02.2001. The Petitioner was also directed by the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation, that he
should submit one months prior notice to the Regional Manager regarding his resignation and submit his communications through the Regional
Manager, being appointing authority of the Petitioner was the Regional Manager.
When the resignation letter was placed before the Regional Manager, being the competent authority vide letter, dated 22.02.2001, the Petitioner
was directed to hand over the charge of Thirumanur Beat to Padugai Beat so that his resignation letter could be accepted.
The Petitioner admittedly did not submit the report for a period of one month. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner thereafter did not join
duty, as he claimed himself to be on medical leave. It was only on 30.11.2001, that the Petitioner woke up from the slumber, and made a request
for reinstatement in service.
The Petitioner was informed, that he could not be permitted to withdraw his resignation now, as it stood accepted. In spite of rejection of his
claim in 2001, the Petitioner did not challenge the order till 2006 and was satisfied by making representations to the department claiming re-
employment.
As already referred to above, the letter of re-employment was rejected and the Petitioner was conveyed from time to time that his request
already stood rejected.
It was in the year 2006 that the Petitioner challenged, the order of acceptance of resignation, by filing the present writ petition.
On consideration, I find No. meri,t in this petition. The Petitioner was conveyed about the acceptance of his resignation letter dated
27.12.2001, when he submitted his request for withdrawal of resignation. The Petitioner only chose to challenge the order only in the year 2006.
The Writ Petition therefore suffers from delay and laches, as repeated non statutory representation to the authorities cover up the delay and laches,
unless representation are statutory.
In this case, as already noted, whenever a representation was made, Petitioner was immediately conveyed that his request could not be
accepted, as his resignation had been accepted.
The plea of the Petitioner that his resignation was not accepted, having been rejected also cannot be accepted. A reading of the letter by the
Managing Director shows that the Petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority by submitting his resignation with one months
notice. Thereafter, when the matter was put up before the competent authority, the Petitioner was directed to handover the charge meaning
acceptance of his resignation. The facts further show that the Respondent, had the intention to accept his resignation from the very beginning, and
as on submission of resignation, Petitioner was immediately reinstated in service, so as to accept the resignation.
The period of one month stipulated for submission of resignation was over on 28.2.2001, admittedly Petitioner did not withdraw his resignation
during this period. It was only in the month of November, that the Petitioner made attempt to claim re-employment, by alleging that his resignation
letter had not been accepted.
The Petitioner during this period did not report for duty, nor any documents have been placed on record showing the submission of application
for leave on medical ground.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that his resignation was not accepted, deserves to be rejected.
The second ground of challenge is also not sustainable, as his resignation was not accepted by Respondent No. 1 but by Respondent No. 2.
The correspondence with Managing Director was only in response to the representations made by the Petitioner for re-employment, which have
No. concern with the acceptance of resignation.
For the reasons stated above, finding No. merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No. costs.