Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Bajpai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76216 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29593 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Dixit,Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4.
2. No notice has been issued to respondent no. 5.
3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.
4. Under challenge is the order dated 15.02.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted with effect from 21.07.2016. Also under challenge is the order dated 08.12.2016, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, whereby the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer has been cancelled.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to press the prayer no. (i) so far as it pertains to raising a challenge to the order dated 08.12.2016 whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer was cancelled and prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed to that extent.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as it pertains toraising challenge to order dated 08.12.2016 in prayer no. (i).
7. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of the case are that on account of certain reasons as indicated in the letter dated 21.07.2016, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed to the competent authority to either set right certain irregularities or else he be permitted to resign with effect from 24.08.2016. When no action was taken the petitioner was constrained to send another letter dated 23.12.2016, a copy of which is annexure 24 to the writ petition, requiring the competent authority to act upon his letter dated 21.07.2016. The competent authority vide the order impugned dated 15.02.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, has accepted the resignation of the petitioner as prayed vide letter dated 21.07.2016 but the said resignation has been enforced with effect from the date of the said letter i.e. 21.07.2016. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.12.2016 the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer that had been made vide order dated 06.11.2015, a copy of which annexure 8 to the writ petition, had been cancelled. Being aggrieved by both the orders the instant writ petition has been filed.
8. So far as order dated 15.02.2017 is concerned the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has submitted his resignation to the competent authority vide letter dated 21.07.2016 for treating his resignation with effect from 24.08.2016. When no action was taken upon the same he had followed the resignation letter with another letter dated 23.12.2016 praying for treating his letter dated 21.07.2016 as letter of resignation. Instead of the the said letter of resignation dated 21.07.2016 being treated as resignation with effect from 24.08.2016 the same has been treated to be with effect from 21.07.2016 and hence the petitioner has been treated to have resigned since 21.07.2016 which thus reflects patent non application of mind to the resignation letter dated 21.07.2016 as has been submitted by him.
9. On the other hand, Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 4 argues that after the petitioner had submitted his resignation letter dated 21.07.2016 intending to resign with effect from 24.08.2016 he had followed up vide the letter dated 23.12.2016 indicating his intent and for acting upon his resignation letter dated 21.07.2016. Consequently the competent authority had acted upon the resignation letter dated 21.07.2016 and has thus treated the petitioner to have resigned with effect from the said date itself i.e. 21.07.2016 and thus it is contended that there is no infirmity in the said order.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and from perusal of record it emerges that on account of certain reasons as were indicated in letter dated 21.07.2016 the petitioner submitted his resignation vide letter dated 21.07.2016 intending to resign with effect from 24.08.2016. When no action was taken upon the same the petitioner sent another letter dated 23.12.2016 for acting upon his resignation letter dated 21.07.2016. The competent authority by means of order impugned dated 15.02.2017 has accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2016 itself.
12. Perusal of resignation letter dated 21.07.2016 would clearly indicate the intention of petitioner to resign with effect from 24.08.2016 in case his grievance in the said letter is not addressed. Admittedly, the grievance as has been raised by the petitioner, was not redressed by the competent authority meaning thereby that the said resignation would come into effect with effect from 24.08.2016. As the competent authority failed to act upon the resignation letter of the petitioner, the petitioner has sent another letter dated 23.12.2016 requiring the competent authority to act upon the resignation letter dated 21.07.2016. Instead of the competent authority acting upon the resignation letter dated 21.07.2016, by means of order impugned dated 15.02.2017, the resignation of the petitioner has been treated with effect from the date of letter dated 21.07.2016. The said acceptance of resignation cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law considering the intention of the petitioner to resign with effect from 24.08.2016. Consequently there was no occasion for the competent authority to have accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2016 as has been done by means of the order impugned dated 15.02.2017.
13. So far as the petitioner having submitted another letter dated 23.12.2016 requiring the competent authority to act upon the resignation letter dated 21.07.2016, suffice to state that perusal of the said letter would also indicate that the petitioner has prayed to the competent authority to act upon his resignation letter dated 21.07.2016. As already indicated above, the resignation letter dated 21.07.2016 had indicated the intention of the petitioner to resign from 24.08.2016. As such, the competent authority while accepting the said resignation letter dated 21.07.2016 was only required to act upon the resignation letter with effect from the date of the intention to resign i.e. with effect from 24.08.2016 but it emerges that the said fact has escaped the attention of the competent authority which has resulted in passing of the order impugned dated 15.02.2017. Thus the order dated 15.02.2017 whereby the petitioner has been treated to have resigned from 21.07.2016 cannot be said to be legally sustainable in the eyes of law so far as it pertains to his resignation with effect from 21.07.2016 rather the same should be read as 24.08.2016.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 15.02.2017 so far as it pertains to resignation of the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2016 is quashed.
15. It is provided that the resignation of the petitioner would be treated with effect from 24.08.2016 i.e. as per the intention expressed by petitioner in his resignation letter dated 21.07.2016.
16. Consequences to follow.
Order Date :- 19.11.2024 J. K. Dinkar