AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.H. Zaidi, J.—Head learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and also perused the record.
By means of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accept resignation submitted by the petitioner and to accept money of security bonds, kits etc.
Facts giving rise to the present petition, are that the petitioner was selected for appointment as Assistant Radio Operator in the month of January, 1988. Thereafter, he was appointed on the said post in temporary capacity on 26/2971988. At the time of his appointment the petitioner executed two bonds copies of which are contained as Annexure4 to the Writ Petition and AnnexureA3 to the counteraffidavit. The relevant paragraphs of the said bonds are quoted below:
"Now the condition of the above written obligation is that in the event of the above bounden failing to faithfully undergo the complete course of the said training or completion of the said training to serve, if so required the State Govt. adequate by the State Govt. the above bounden and/or the sureties shall forthwith refund to the Stale Government, the said sum of Rs. 1,0007(in words Rupees One Thousand only).
And upon his or the sureties making the aforesaid payment on demand, the above written obligation will be avoid and of no effect. otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect."
Hindi
After executing the said bonds the petitioner was posted at Bijnor on 2971988. The petitioner thereafter had to leave the job. To that effect he made entry in the General Diary and applied for leave. The leave applied for by the petitioner for 10 days was granted. Thereafter he applied for extension of leave but it is not known to the petitioner that the leave was extended or not. He ultimately tendered his resignation from the said post on 1551989 which was not accepted by the competent authority. The petitioner therefore, had to approach this Court and file the present petition for the above mentioned reliefs.
On behalf of the respondents a counteraffidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that for the absence from duty without leave disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were pending disposal. C 1,nsequently, resignation of the petitioner was not accepted. The petitioner has also filed rejoinderaffidavit in rebuttal of the facts stated in the counteraffidavit reiterating the facts stated in the Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was willing to comply with the terms and conditions of the bonds executed by him, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents in not accepting the resignation of the petitioner and not to relieve him from service.
On the other hand learned standing counsel submitted that as disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, therefore, his resignation could not be accepted. The question for consideration before this Court, thus, is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to submit his resignation during pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
From a reading of the aforesaid bonds it is evident that it provides that in the event the bounden failing to faithfully undergo and to complete the said training or on completion of the said training to serve, if so required the State Govt. adequate by the State Govt. the above bounden and/or the sureties shall forthwith refund to the State Government, the said sum of Rs. 1,000/(Rupees one thousand only).
It has also been provided that on completion of training the bounden if so required, serve the State Govt. for a period of at least two years on a salary considered adequate by the State Govt.
In the second bond executed by the petitioner it has been provided that if the bounden fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of his service noted above, he will have to refund the amount which has been paid to him as salary or otherwise by State Government.
In the present case, petitioner is willing to pay the whole amount which has been paid to the petitioner either as salary or as otherwise, therefore, there should not have been any difficulty for the respondents in accepting resignation submitted by him. Otherwise also, the Government servant unless otherwise provided in the relevant Service Rules or in the terms and conditions of service can tender his resignation at any time he wishes to resign and the resignation is liable to be accepted if it is required to be accepted by the competent authority. Further, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated on the change of absence from duty without leave. No other charge is alleged to have been levelled against the petitioner. Even if the said charge is found to have been proved, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to tender resignation from the aforesaid post. In view of the said facts, Writ Petition deserves to be allowed in part.
Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept the resignation of the petitioner subject to the condition the petitioner refunds the amount in terms of bonds executed by him, to the competent authority, within a period of one month from today.
No order as to costs.