Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar vs North Zone Cultural Centre and Another

M.R. Agnihotri, J.—Petitioner Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar was appointed as Accountant on 27th August, 1987, in the North Zone Cultural Centre, Sheesh Mahal, Patiala. This Centre is an organisation financed by the Government of India and the States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. An officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service is the Director of the Centre.

The appointment of the Petitioner, though made for a period of three months in the first instance on 27th August, 1987. was extended for more than a year. On 18th November, 1988, the Petitioner submitted his resignation from service addressing the same to the Director of the Centre. The one line resignation reading "I hereby submit my resignation with effect from 18th November, 1988" was dated 18th November, 1988, itself. But three days later, on 21st November, 1988, the Petitioner withdrew the same by addressing a telegram to the Director of the Centre, intimating that he was withdrawing his resignation which had been obtained under pressure and threat on 18th November, 1988. That the Director of the Centre issued an office order, with a copy endorsed to the Petitioner, to the following effect:

Office Order

The resignation tendered by Shri D.K. Vedpathi, Accountant, with effect from 18th November, 1988, is hereby accepted. He should handover complete charge to Shri Mohinder Lal Assistant immediately and should consider himself relieved from services of North Zone Cultural Centre with effect from 18th November, 1988.

(Sd.) . . ., Director North Zone Cultural Centre. Sheesh Mahal, Patiala. 18-11-1988

No. NZCC/D/88-89/9421-9425, dated 1st December, 1988. A copy of the above is forwarded to:

Shri D.K. Vedpathi, Accountant, NZCC.

Shri Mohinder Lal, Account Assistant, NZCC.

(Sd.) . . ., Director North Zone Cultural Centre. Sheesh Mahal, Patiala.

Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against this order, the Petitioner approached this Court on 5th December, 1988, by way of the present writ petition levelling allegations of mala fides.

Notice of motion was issued and in the written statement the specific assertion made by the Petitioner that even after the submission of the resignation on 18th November, 1988, and withdrawal thereof on 21st November, 1988, the Petitioner continued to attend the office upto 30th November, 1988, was not denied. Rather, the fact was admitted by the Director of the Centre, as the Director was away from Patiala from 18th November, 1988, to 30th November, 1988. Thereupon, the Motion Bench on 14th March, 1989, prima facie finding the factual position consistent with the assertion of the Petitioner that the resignation had not been accepted on 18th November, 1988, itself, and was, in fact, accepted on 1st December. 1988, that is, after the withdrawal of the resignation on 21st November, 1988, admitted the petition for final hearing within three months, with an interim direction to take back the Petitioner in service forthwith. In compliance with the aforesaid order, though the Petitioner submitted his joining report on 16th March, 1989, but he was intimated on 18th March, 1989, that as the original contract of service of the Petitioner came to an end on his resignation on 18th November, 1988, he had no right to continue in that office after 30th November, 1988; "however, in view of the High Court order, you are allowed to report in this office with effect from 16th March, 1989 subject to the final decision of your writ petition". What happened thereafter with the Petitioner in office is not on the record, but the fact stands that on that very day, the Petitioner moved an application to this Court stating that "since the matter has been settled between the Petitioner and the Respondents outside the Court, therefore, he is no longer interested in prosecuting the same". Consequently, it was prayed that the writ petition be allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. Accord ingly, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn, as prayed, on 20th April, 1990, the Petitioner made a detailed application to this Court for recalling the order dated 20th March, 1990, stating the application for withdrawal of his writ petition was obtained from him under coercion and inducement. A number of allegations against various persons were levelled in the application. But after issuing notice to the counsel for the Respondents, the writ petition was restored to its original position on 16th July, 1990, by recalling the earlier order without going into the merits of the various contentions raised in the miscellaneous application.

The short question involved in the present writ petition is as to, whether the resignation submitted by the Petitioner on 18th November, 1988, was in fact accepted on 18th November, 1988, itself, or it was accepted on 1st December, 1988, after the resignation had been withdrawn on 21st November, 1988, leaving nothing with the authorities to accept on 1st December, 1988.

Though the factual position has been broadly accepted in the written statement, yet the period between 18th November, 1988 the date on which the resignation was submitted, and 1st December, 1988 the date when acceptance of the resignation was intimated to the Petitioner, is sought to be explained by pleading that though the resignation had been accepted by the Director on 18th November, 1988, itself, but the Office Secretary did not go to the office being on tour from 18th November, 1988, to 30th November, 1988. and that the office order was actually issued on 1st December, 1988. In this regard, the relevant extracts from paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the written statement are reproduced below:

...After passing the aforesaid order on the resignation of the Petitioner on 18th November, 1988 at Chandigarh, the resignation was handed over to Shri S.L. Batish, Office Secretary, for further action as Shri S.L. Batish. Office Secretary, was also on tour at Chandigarh. Shri S.L. Batish, Office Secretary, did not go to Patiala, on or after 18th November, 1988 till 30th November, 1988. as he was on duty at Chandigarh upto 22nd November, 1988 and from Chandigarh he proceeded to Jammu to . participate in ''Mela Jammu Da''. The answering Respondent was also out of Patiala from 16th November, 1988 to 30th November. 1988 and she was at Chandigarh and Jammu upto 30th November, 1988. It was only Shri S.L. Batish, Office Secretary, who was to deal with the resignation after the passing of the order by the answering Respondent.

The resignation was accepted on 18th November, 1988 itself. The Petitioner attended the office on some days for short intervals after 18th November, 1988 till 30th November, 1988 in the absence of the answering Respondent and Shri S.L. Batish, Office Secretary, as no other official kneio about the acceptance of the resignation of the Petitioner at Patiala. The acceptance of the resignation was served on the Petitioner on return from tour.

...The letter accepting the resignation could not be served on the Petitioner till 1st December, 1988 nor the despatch No. could be put thereon prior to that date, as the answering Respondent and Shri S.L. Batish, Office Secretary, were on tour to Chandigarh and Jammu from 18th November, 1988 to 30th November, 1988. The Petitioner knew fully well that his resignation had been accepted on 18th November. 1988.

...(ii) ...The answering Respondent was not at Patiala on 18th November, 1988 when the resignation was given. It was not necessary to insist on one month''s notice. The condition of one month''s notice is deemed to have been waived.

(iii) ...The Petitioner marked his presence in the attendance register of the employees which was lying on the table of Shri S.L. Batish, Office Secretary, in his absence as Shri S.L. Batish, Officer Secretary, was on tour till 30th November, 1988. The question of accepting the withdrawal did not arise.

At the outset it may be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not press the allegations of mala jides levelled in the petition and the miscellaneous application, which have otherwise also not been established on record.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on the record, I am of the considered view that the resignation submitted by the Petitioner on 18th November, 1988, was accepted for all intents and purposes on 1st December, 1988, and not earlier thereto, as neither the Petitioner was intimated of the acceptance of his resignation nor was he actually relieved of his duties. Accepting the averments made by the Director of the Centre, who is a responsible I.A.S. Officer, in her statement, and without even remotely suggesting to disbelieve the same, the fact stands that "the letter of resignation of the Petitioner dated 18th November, 1988, and the papers regarding its acceptance did not come down to the office right till 1st December, 1988, and it was on that date that the office order was issued, in pursuance whereof the Petitioner was relieved of his duties thereafter." It has further been established on record that the Petitioner in fact continued to work and marked his presence till 30th November, 1988. In these circumstances, withdrawal of the resignation by the Petitioner on 21st November, 1988, becomes material and the making of this request left nothing with the authorities on 1st December, 1988, on the basis whereof either the resignation could be formally accepted or office order issued, for relieving the Petitioner of his duties.

Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sibal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has vehemently opposed the writ petition by invoking to his aid the well-known authority of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1966 S.C. 180, to contend that withdrawal of resignation was not permissible even before the acceptance of resignation.

I have minutely gone through the above cited judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and, if at all, it supports the Petitioner and not the Respondents. Had the Petitioner been relieved of his duties in pursuance of his resignation submitted on 18th November, 1988, it could be inferred that the ministerial act of relieving the Petitioner was in the wake of acceptance of his resignation which might have taken place earlier. But in the present case, as has been admitted in the written statement filed by the Respondents, nobody knew about the acceptance of resignation till the office order dated 1st December, 1988, was issued and the Petitioner relieved in pursuance thereof. In this regard, reproduction hereunder of para 3 of the Consolidated Guidelines and Instructions issued by the Government of India--Vide No. 28034/85/87, dated 11th February, 1988, dealing with the subject of acceptance and withdrawal of resignation, would be useful:

A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. If a Government servant who has submitted a resignation, sends an intimation in writing to the appointing authority withdrawing his earlier letter of resignation before its acceptance by the appointing authority, the resignation will be deemed to have been automatically withdrawn and there is no question of accepting the resignation. In case, however, the resignation had been accepted by the appointing authority and the Government servant is to be relieved from a future date, if any request for withdrawing the resignation is made by the Government servant before he is actually relieved of his duties, the normal principle should be to allow the request of the Government servant to withdraw the resignation. If, however, the request for withdrawal is to be refused, the grounds for the rejection of the request should be duly recorded by the appointing authority and suitably intimated to the Government servant concerned.

Consequently, I allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 1st December, 1988 (Annexure P.5), and by issuing a writ of mandamus direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as having continued in service on the post of Accountant with effect from 1st December, 1988, and entitled to all the arrears of salary and allowances, etc. to which he would have been entitled under the rules, had he not been relieved on 1st December, 1988, in pursuance of the acceptance of his resignation dated 18th November, which stood withdrawn with effect from 21st November, 1988. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.