Saugata Roy vs Pec Limited on 8 May, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Saugata Roy vs Pec Limited on 8 May, 2018

Bench: Sunil Gaur

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                           Date of Order: May 08, 2018

+                   W.P.(C) 4886/2018 & CM 18833/2018
       SAUGATA ROY                                  ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Ms. Kartika Sharma and Mr.
                         Cheitanya Madan, Advocates

                    Versus


       PEC LIMITED                                  ..... Respondent
                         Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula and Ms.
                         Anumita Chandra, Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         ORDER
                         (ORAL)

1. Petitioner's resignation stands rejected vide email Communication of 16th April, 2018 (Annexure P-8). The cryptic resignation reads as under: -

"With reference to your resignation dated 05-04- 2018 to DIR(AM), it is to inform you that the same has not been accepted by the Competent Authority as Vigilance Clearance has not been granted in view of the Disciplinary Proceedings for Major Penalty to your goodself in underway."

W.P.(C) 4886/2018 Page 1 of 3

2. Vigilance clearance has not been granted due to pending departmental inquiry against petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent informs that even a criminal case has been registered against petitioner by CBI on the subject matter of Memorandum of 5th August, 2016. Learned counsel for respondent has drawn attention of this Court to respondent's HR Manual. Clause 13 thereof deals with resignation, dismissal or termination of service and its relevant extract is as under: -

"Resignation tendered by an employee shall not become effective till it is accepted by the Company and the acceptance communicated to the employee. The Company shall have the right to refuse, for reasons to be communicated to the employee in writing, to accept resignation in a case where a disciplinary proceeding against the concerned employee is contemplated or has been initiated or is pending."

3. Since impugned rejection does not spell out the reasons, therefore, it is quashed with direction to respondent to deal with petitioner's application for resignation in light of Clause 13 of respondent's HR Manual, as referred to above. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today and its fate be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

4. As regards pending departmental inquiry against petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent to expeditiously proceed with it and to make all endeavours to W.P.(C) 4886/2018 Page 2 of 3 conclude the recording of evidence of management's witnesses within a period of three months from the date already fixed.

5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 08, 2018 s W.P.(C) 4886/2018 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court