Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India And Anr vs Ramjas Bhinchar And Anr on 8 October, 2018
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ No. 3373/2016
1. The Union Of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Headquarters Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Establishment Division Office, Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Ramjas Bhinchar S/o Sh. Arjun Ram Bhinchar, R/o Kuchipala
(Gachhipura), Tehsil Makrana, District Nagour.
2. The Superintendent of Post Office Nagour Zone, Nagour,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kamal Dave.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Surendra Choudhary & Mr.Laxman
Singh.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 08/10/2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent no.1 was working as an Extra Departmental Agent in the Postal Department. The post is a civil post. He applied for being appointed as a Khalasi under the Railways and being selected as a Khalasi and offered appointment, he submitted a letter of resignation on 31.10.2013 to the Superintendent, Post Office, Nagaur, his superior officer.
3. Processing the application, on 23.12.2013 necessary information was being gathered to process the respondent No.1's application seeking resignation. Thereafter on 26.12.2013 the respondent No.1 was relieved. The respondent No.1 being a lowly (2 of 3) [CW-3373/2016] paid employee mistook the same to be as if the department had discharged him from service by accepting his resignation and thus, on 28.12.2013 he joined the Railways. It surfaced that the respondent No.1's application for resignation was accepted by the postal authorities on 1.9.2014. When this came to the notice of the Railway Authority, on the plea that when he joined the duties under the Railways, he was an employee of the postal department and nobody can hold 2 posts under the Government, appointment given to the respondent No.1 was cancelled vide order dated 1.5.2015. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal took a view that it is not the case where the respondent No.1 worked at 2 places. The Tribunal held that though the resignation was technically accepted on 1.9.2014, the respondent No.1 was as a matter of fact discharged on 23.12.2013. This is obviously a wrong fact noted by the Tribunal because the communication dated 23.12.2013 does not record that the respondent No.1 is discharged. It simply records that information be collected so that the respondent No.1's application seeking resignation could be processed.
5. It is obviously a case where the respondent No.1 mistook the contents of the communication dated 26.12.2013 but no malafide or ill intent can be attributed to him.
6. The belief of the respondent No.1 has been fortified by the office order dated 26.12.2013 issued by the office of Sub Divisional Inspector (Post), Degana which records that pursuant to the communication dated 23.12.2013, the respondent No.1 has been relieved and in his place an incumbent has been posted. It also records that charge has been handed over.
(3 of 3) [CW-3373/2016]
7. Thus, correcting the factual mistake by the Tribunal, we reached the same destination.
8. The respondent No.1 bonafide believed that pursuant to the postal department's communication dated 23.12.2013 followed by the communication dated 26.12.2013 which categorically records that he had submitted a resignation on 1.11.2013 and that on 24.12.2013 he was relieved and in his place, a new incumbent has joined, his resignation was accepted.
9. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ. S.Phophaliya/-15 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)