Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. A plain reading of the above makes it clear that the management has right not to accept a resignation, if, in the opinion of the management, the circumstances so warrant. The circumstances illustratively may concern themselves with eventualities like the inability of the company to relieve an individual entrusted with important work, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, vigilance enquiry.

15. Indeed, clause 4 of the appointment letter is to be read in harmony with the condition of termination of employment as provided in the Rules. As such, it is to be concluded that the respondent company does have the power to reject the resignation of the petitioner. Stated thus, we may now examine whether the conditions laid down in Rule 35.A are in existence in the present case. On 18.12.2002 the petitioner resigned from his job. In the resignation letter the petitioner clearly stated that he had to report for duty in the establishment of his new employer, the Government of A.P., on 23.12.2002. In terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was required to put the respondent company on three months notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. For the said purpose, in his letter of resignation, the petitioner requested the authorities to adjust the said amount from the terminal benefits due to him.

16. Despite the petitioner clearly stating that he had to join in the service of his new employer by a particular date and despite his request to give effect to his resignation immediately, the respondent company neither immediately nor at any point of time later informed the petitioner that it had any difficulty in accepting the resignation. I hasten to add that it does not mean that an employee has the privilege of unilaterally declaring his resignation, or for that matter, when it should come into effect. At any rate, it is for the management to show that there were any circumstances existing at the time of the petitioner offering his resignation that there existed any of the circumstances as have been enumerated in Rule 35.A of the Rules, not to accept the resignation. More particularly, the said circumstance ought to be manifest in the communication of the management in response to the offer of resignation by the employee. Except stating that the petitioner was to recover certain amounts from one particular dealer, no other reason had been assigned why the resignation should not be accepted. In fact, there has been no particular communication emanated from the respondent company in response to the letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner, save the communication by the company after more than three months demanding the petitioner to perform the task of recovering the dues from a dealer.

27. At this juncture, before proceeding further, it is apposite to consider the authorities the petitioner has placed reliance on. In Vedaprakash Sarma (1 supra), the Supreme Court has stated that under the contract of service the issue of resignation is a right conferred on the employee, which is not dependent on the managements goodwill, and that the management cannot come into picture as the right is absolute on the expiry of 30 days, by which date the relationship comes to an end. I am afraid on the facts of the present case the ratio laid down in Vedaprakash Sarma (1 supra) may not have any relevance. In terms of the appointment letter and also Rule 35.A, the resignation is not automatic.