Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 12 October, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2182/2009 MA No.1666/2009 New Delhi, this the 12th day of October, 2009 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Kapil Dev Prasad R/o Cement Bhandar At Nai Sarai, P.O. Bihar Sarif, District Nalanda, Bihar 803 101. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Sh. Anoop Kumar) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001. 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 3rd Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Road, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001. 3. Director of Finance Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 3rd Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Road, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001. 4. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 5. Chief General Manager (Finance) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 6. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telecom District, Valsad, Gujarat. 7. Assistant General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. . Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri Dinesh Agnani) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Pankaj Kumar, the Applicant herein, has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 thereby seeking for the following reliefs :
i. Grant a certiorari quashing the rejection orders vide the letter No.staff/17-45/JAO resignation/f/2008/12 dated 15.04.2008 issued by Chief Accounts Officer (Finance), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ahmedabad; and the letter No.BSNL/HQ/2008/4894 dated 27.11.2008 issued by the General Manager (PG), BSNL, New Delhi, rejecting the representation of the applicant; AND ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to accept the withdrawal of resignation of the petitioner and allow him to rejoin/revert his services in BSNL;
iii. Issue a Writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents authorities to regularize the service of petitioner, either by treating intervening period as leave without pay or dies non without break in service; And/Or iv. pass such other and further order (s) as this Honble Court may deem fit under the circumstances.
2. Brief factual matrix of the case would reveal that the Applicant was selected for the post of Junior Accounts Officer in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL for short), executed a contract on 23.10.2003; received the appointment letter dated 24.5.2004 and had been working as Junior Accounts Officer (JAO), BSNL, GMTD Valsad, Gujarat Circle. The Applicant in the meantime applied for the post of Credit Officer (MMG III) in Corporation Bank. He sent a letter dated 12.7.2007 (Page 17) to GM, BSNL, Valsad, informing his application and sought NOC for appearing in the examination for the said post in Corporation Bank and gave an undertaking. He appeared in the interview for the said post in Corporation Bank on 26.11.2007 and submitted his resignation dated 1.1.2008 (Page 18) to the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Ahmedabad. He informed the Respondents about his application to the advertisement for the post of Credit Officer in Corporation Bank and his selection, as a result of which, he was tendering his resignation from the post of JAO in BSNL. The Applicant termed his resignation as technical resignation from the post of Junior Accounts Officer in BSNL. The Respondents accepted the unconditional resignation tendered by the Applicant from the BSNL services vide their letter dated 29.02.2008 (Page 20). Since the Applicant executed a bond with the Respondents, he vide his letter dated 18.02.2008 (Page 19) informed about the full discharge of his liabilities and remittance of Rs.1,39,097/- by demand draft and cash. His resignation was accepted and his name was struck off from the rolls of the BSNL. Subsequently, the Applicant joined the Corporation Bank at Mumbai. Vide his letter dated 10.3.2008 (Page 22) and letter dated 5.4.2008 (Annexure A/7) he requested the BSNL to allow him to rejoin his duty as JAO in BSNL. The Respondents vide their letter dated 15.04.2008 (Page 24) considered his representation and rejected his request to rejoin the duties as JAO in BSNL. Consequent to the said letter the Applicant wrote to CGM, BSNL another letter dated 21.4.2008 and followed up with letters dated 1.5.2008 and 28.06.2008 to Director (Finance) and others. The Respondents having considered his request informed the Applicant vide their letter dated 27.11.2008 (Page 33) that the Applicants request for withdrawal of his resignation was considered by the Competent Authority as per Rule 26(5) of CCS (Pension) Rules and the same could not be acceded to. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant is before us with this OA.
3. This Tribunal, at the admission stage, considered his request for the Transferred Petition No.215/2009 and allowed the same after hearing both parties and the case was then taken up. On 12.08.2009 when the case was called out none appeared for the Applicant and even at the revised call at 2:30pm, as a result of which, this OA was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. However, subsequently, the Applicant submitted his MA No.1666/2009 explaining therein the reasons for which the Applicant and his Counsel could not be present in the Tribunal on 12.8.2009. While considering the MA, the Original Application was also heard on merits on 4.09.2009 where both the learned counsel argued at great length and finally the case was adjourned to 8.09.2009 and ultimately we heard this OA on 8.10.2009 when the learned counsel for the Respondents argued and neither the Applicant nor his counsel was present. However, since we have heard the Applicants arguments earlier, hearing in the case was concluded on 8.10.2009.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Applicant joined a Public Sector Bank and tendered only technical resignation for which he was entitled to withdraw his technical resignation. Further, he submitted that the Applicant, while applying for the post in Corporation Bank, had sought NOC from BSNL for which the Respondents would not be correct to claim that they were not aware of the application. Hence, he argued that the OA deserved to be allowed.
5. Per contra, Shri Dinesh Agnani, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents very strongly opposed the grounds raised by the counsel for Applicant. Shri Agnani anchored his contentions on 2 aspects viz. (i) the Applicant did not apply through the Respondents and no NOC was granted by BSNL and (ii) the resignation was accepted unconditionally and no lien was maintained by the Applicant.
6. After having heard the rival contentions and having perused the pleadings, the only issue that comes before us is whether the Applicants application for withdrawal of his resignation rejected by the Respondents is valid or not?
7. In this context, it is appropriate for us to note the admitted facts that (i) the Applicant applied for the post of Credit Officer in the Corporation Bank directly and did not submit his Application through proper channel. (ii) He was not granted any No Objection Certificate by the Respondents for the Applicants application. (iii) The Applicant on his own motion, having been selected by the Corporation Bank for the post of Credit Officer tendered his technical resignation w.e.f. 28.01.2008 for joining in the Corporation Bank. (iv) He also discharged his own bond liability with the BSNL before his resignation was accepted to join the Corporation Bank. (v) On 29.02.2008 (Page 20) his resignation was accepted .
8. There was no lien to maintain the link between the Applicant and the Respondents BSNL. As such, the resignation was unconditional and in the absence of any lien beyond the date of acceptance of resignation the return of the Applicant to BSNL was not possible. It is the duty of the Respondent-BSNL to have considered the request of the Applicant for withdrawal of resignation and having considered, the request was rejected since it was not permissible for the BSNL to accept the withdrawal as per Rule 26 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 26(5) of CCS (Pension) Rules only prescribes the procedure of withdrawal of resignation from government service after the resignation has become effective and the government servant had relinquished the charge of his earlier post and in the present case this withdrawal does not come within the ambit since it was an unconditional resignation. The resignation was accepted and the relinquishment of the Applicant was done only as per his wishes. He did not maintain any lien with the Respondents BSNL. He gave notice and on the completion of the notice period, got his resignation accepted and relinquished the charges. Therefore, the BSNL is right in their powers and jurisdiction to have rejected the claims of the Applicant since the unconditional resignation so accepted, cannot be withdrawn.
9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Applicant has not made out a case in his support and, therefore, we come to the considered conclusion that the Respondents are well within their functional domain to have accepted the resignation and subsequently rejected the request of the Applicant for withdrawing his resignation which was accepted by the BSNL. In the result, we find that the OA does not have merits and is, therefore dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pj/