Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It was further stated that the petitioner had failed to rejoin duty even after repeated directions from the respondents. Since the petitioner made up his mind to resign from service, he submitted his letter of resignation dated 28-7-1996 which was accepted with immediate effect by the competent authority on 1-11-1996. However, the acceptance of resignation was then conveyed to the petitioner vide 1443 BCC letter No. 1024/DNR/40/E1, dated 6-12-1996. Then the petitioner tendered withdrawal application of his resignation dated 2-12-1996 with a condition that on acceptance of the same he may be posted to unit/station nearer to his home town. Since it was a conditional one, he was advised to submit an unconditional withdrawal application vide letter dated 3-2-1997and HQ CE(P) Udayak letter No. 10016/XY/E1A, dated 13-2-1997. The unconditional withdrawal application dated 24-2-1997 was considered by the Secretariat, BRDP and rejected in terms of Rule 26(4)(iii) of the Rules vide letter dated 28-5-1997. Petitioner made another application of withdrawal, which was also rejected on 19-11-1997.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment reported in K. Sudha Nagaraj v. Chief Manager, Andhra Bank 1996 (1) ALD 1023 and drawn attention of the Court to paragraphs 2, 4, 9, 10 and 12 and submitted that the resignation becomes effective only from the date of communication of the acceptance to the employee and not otherwise. Paragraphs 4, 9, 10 and 12, which are relevant, read as under:

4. The crucial question that has to be considered in the Writ Petition is whether as on 19-9-1990 when the application for withdrawal for resignation was submitted by the petitioner, the resignation was accepted and that the petitioner was informed of the acceptance of the resignation.
12. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it has to be held that it is always open for the employee to withdraw his resignation, before the expiry of the effective date. Even in case where no effective date is stipulated, the resignation can be withdrawn before the acceptance of the resignation is communicated. In the instant case, no effective date has been notified by the employee and what all she stated in her letter dated 19-1-1990 was that she intends to tender resignation due to domestic reasons and that the same may be accepted and she may be relieved. As per the counter of respondents, the petitioner was not relieved as on 19-9-1990, nor the acceptance of resignation was communicated. Therefore, it has to be held that there was no acceptance of resignation in the eye of law.

9. From the above Judgments, it is clear that in a case where the act of relinquishment (resignation) is a bilateral character, it requires to be accepted and unless it is accepted and the said acceptance is communicated, it will not come into effect. In this case, admittedly, even according to the respondents, the acceptance of the resignation with effect from 1-11-1996 was communicated through letter dated 6-12-1996, which was received by the petitioner on 7-1-1997 and in the meanwhile, on 2-12-1996, the petitioner had already sent the letter of withdrawal of resignation. Therefore, the purported acceptance of resignation with effect from 1-11-1996 was never communicated to the petitioner before he submitted application for withdrawal of resignation on 2-12-1996 and thus, the alleged acceptance of resignation has not come into effect. That apart, it is not denied in the entire counter that the letter of withdrawal of resignation dated 2-12-1996 was not received by the respondents before the letter dated 6-12-1996 and/or 7-1-1997. Further, the respondents themselves addressed letters dated 3-2-1997 and 13-2-1997 asking the petitioner to submit unconditional withdrawal application as if the earlier one was a conditional one. This further makes it clear that the resignation letter sent by the petitioner was never accepted. Therefore, Rule 26(4)(iii) of the Rules has no application to the facts of this case. The said Rule reads as under: