AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by judgment dated 22nd June, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 15370 of 2010, respondents 2 and 3 therein preferred the present writ appeal.
The first respondent herein filed the abovementioned writ petition. He was employed with the first appellant herein and he has been working as the Secretary of the first appellant society. The third respondent Bank invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of ''Cashier-cum-Clerk''. The first respondent admittedly became one of the successful candidates in the selection procedure that followed by the abovementioned advertisement.
By Ext.P2 letter dated 12.4.2010 the first respondent was called upon by the third respondent to report for duty within 15 days of the receipt of the appointment letter. Thereafter the first respondent applied to the appellants herein to relieve him from the service in order to enable him to report to the third respondent. Since the request of the first respondent was not favourably considered for some time by the appellants, the first respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 15370 of 2010 which was allowed by the judgment under appeal.
The appellants resisted the writ petition on the ground that a disciplinary enquiry relating to certain allegations of misconduct is pending against the first respondent and therefore they are not in a position to relieve the first respondent because the appellants believe (and rightly so) that they would lose the disciplinary control over the first respondent the moment he is relieved from the service as the contractual relationship of master and servant between the appellants and the first respondent would come to an end thereby disabling the appellants to have any disciplinary control over the first respondent.
By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court opined in substance that the appellants are not able to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period and therefore there is no justification for the appellants to decline the request made by the first respondent to relieve him from service.
When the matter was taken up on 8.10.2010, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we thought it that if the first respondent is willing to give an undertaking that he would have no objection for the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellants herein notwithstanding the fact that the appellants relieve him from service and also agrees not to question the legality of the continuance of such disciplinary proceedings, the present litigation could be terminated. We, therefore, called upon the learned Counsel for the first respondent to obtain instructions in this regard. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is agreeable for giving such an undertaking. The first respondent who is present in the court also made a categoric statement before us that he would have no objection in giving an undertaking as mentioned above.
In the circumstances, we record the abovementioned undertaking of the first respondent and in view of such an undertaking we dispose of the writ appeal directing the appellants to relieve the first respondent herein forthwith, preferably within a period of one week from the date of obtaining the undertaking in writing. It goes without saying that the appellants while relieving the first respondent should return all the certificates which were secured from him at the time of appointment and also give necessary experience certificate to enable the first respondent to seek employment elsewhere. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the writ appeal, we also deem it appropriate to direct the third respondent to appoint the first respondent on production of necessary certificates if they are otherwise in accordance with law.