JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order
dated December 31, 1994 (Annexure 20) accepting the resignation of the
petitioner. He has also prayed for a direction for enquiring into the harassment
and torture undergone by him and to pay him compensation.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk in the year 1988
under I.T.D.C. and was posted in Hotel Kalinga-Ashoka at Bhubaneswar. It is
alleged that though the petitioner was basically appointed as Accounts Clerk
having no specific knowledge about kitchen control, he was asked to control work
in kitchen at the behest of opposite party No. 4. The petitioner reluctantly
joined in the kitchen control work in the year 1993. When the petitioner was on
leave, opposite party No. 3 wrote to the petitioner alleging certain
discrepancies and the petitioner submitted letter dated January 27, 1993
(Annexure 1) explaining the situation and seeking for an additional help to
enable him to work properly. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 4
started harassing the petitioner. It is further alleged that opposite party No.5
due to personal malice and bias harassed the petitioner and even threatened to
kill him with the assistance of opposite party No. 5’s own son. Though the
aforesaid aspect was brought to the notice, no action was taken. On the other
hand. the petitioner was placed under suspension on February 12, 1993 and
subsequently a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The petitioner had denied
the allegations made against him. However, opposite party No. 4 had appointed
one Shri Harmohan Jena, Advocate, as the Inquiry Officer, though no such
provision was there in the Regulations. Ultimately, an inquiry report was
submitted against the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show cause as
to why he could not be dismissed. Subsequently, opposite party No. 4 passed an
order of dismissal on September 1, 1993 as per Annexure 8. The petitioner had
preferred appeal. The appellate authority by order dated November 18, 1993
reinstead the petitioner, but directed for stoppage of three annual increments
with cumulative effect as per Annexure 9. It is further alleged that even
thereafter the petitioner was further harassed. The incidents of such alleged
harassment have been mentioned in the writ petition as per various documents and
it is not necessary to recount in detail all the documents. Ultimately, it is
alleged that being oppressed by severe mental tension, the petitioner submitted
letter dated December 8, 1994 styling it as resignation. The said letter is
extracted hereunder :–
“To
The General Manager, Bhubaneswar,
Hotel Kalinga Ashoka, Dt/-8-12-1994.
Goutam Nagar, Bhubaneswar
Sub :– Resignation in respect of Jyotirmoy Mohapatra, Accts. Clerk.
Sir,
It is to inform you due to ILLEGAL PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL through FRAUD,
BIAS, MALA FIDE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS, providing the job of S.T. Assessment work
of 1992-93 (DISMISSAL PERIOD WORK), Failed to give justice, NON-HANDING OVER
OF CHARGES OF CASHIER, THREATENING (sic) ME FROM SERVICE though efficiently
discharging duties with necessary record for the same. I am submitting
herewith my resignation with effect from December 8, 1994 (F.N.) since you
have VICTIMISED ME as referred above.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (JYOTIRMOY MAHAPATRA)
Accounts Clerk.”
It is alleged that before acceptance of the so-called conditional resignation
letter, the petitioner submitted, a representation on December 30, 1994 which
has been annexed as Annexure-19. It is further alleged in the writ petition that
inspite of withdrawal of the resignation as per Annexure-19, opposite party No.
4 illegally accepted the resignation by order dated December 31, 1994 to be
effective from January 7, 1995. i.e. on completion of one month from the date of
resignation. The said order has been annexed as Annexure 20 and is being
impugned in this writ application.
3. Opposite party No. 4 in his counter- affidavit has denied about the
alleged harassments of the petitioner. He has specifically denied about
Annexure-19 having been submitted by the petitioner. Opposite party No. 4 has
further contended in the counter-affidavit that after acceptance of the
resignation, the petitioner has handed over charge on January 7, 1995 as would
be evident from letter of the petitioner dated January 7, 1995 (Annexure A/4).
Opposite party No. 4 has further referred to the various letters of the
petitioner claiming gratuity and provident fund after the acceptance of
resignation letter. In short, it is contended that the resignation having been
duly accepted, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to claim any
relief in this writ application.
4. Though originally the writ application had been filed through Advocates,
subsequently, the Advocates have withdrawn their power and the petitioner has
been conducting his case in person. Several letters written by the petitioner
putting forth his grievance are on record. On the date of final hearing, the
petitioner was heard in-person. While hearing the petitioner and learned counsel
for the opposite parties, it was suggested to the counsel for opposite party No.
4 to obtain instruction and to explore the possibility of reinstating the
petitioner in service without pecuniary benefit for the intervening period.
While the counsel for opposite party No. 4 wanted some time to obtain
instruction in the matter, the petitioner-in-person submitted that he is no
longer interested in being reinstated in service as he apprehended further
harassment at the hand of the Management. Instead, the petitioner submitted that
compensation may be paid.
5. The petitioner claims that he submitted the letter of withdrawal of
resignation (Annexure-19) on December 30, 1994. This allegation of the
petitioner has been denied in the counter-affidavit. There is no intrinsic
material on record to support the assertion of the petitioner that indeed
Annexure-19 had been submitted before the proper authority on December 30, 1994.
On the other hand, documents such as Annexures-A/4, B/4 and C/4 which have been
written by the petitioner soon after he was relieved from service belie the
submission of so-called withdrawal letter. Therefore, it is difficult to accept
the contention of the petitioner that he had withdrawn his earlier letter of
resignation. However, it is clear from the various documents filed by either of
the parties including the letters written by the petitioner to the High Court
from time to time, that under some mental strain and pressure, the petitioner
had submitted the letter dated December 8, 1994. Ordinarily in the present days
of unemployment nobody gives up a job unless there is some compelling reason.
Though in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution it is difficult to
arrive at the truth regarding alleged harassments et cetera, it can be
reasonably concluded that the petitioner had submitted the letter dated December
8, 1994 under some mental pressure and tension. From the order of acceptance of
resignation under Annexure-20. it becomes clear that thirty days’ notice is
required for resigning from service. Annexure-18 did not indicate anything and
did not purport to be a notice. It was also not an unconditional resignation as
would be clear from the concluding sentence to the effect :–
“…… I am submitting herewith my resignation with effect from
December 8, 1994 (F.N.) since you have VICTIMISED ME as referred
above.”
Since no period had been indicated and it was not unconditional, prima facie
it could not have been treated as letter of resignation in accordance with the
relevant service regulation. However, as the petitioner has subsequently
accepted gratuity and provident fund etcetera, it is possible to come to a
conclusion that he has acquiesced in the matter and may not be entitled to
reinstatement as such. Moreover, as already indicated earlier, the petitioner
while appearing in-person has made a statement in Court that he is not
interested in further continuing in service under opposite parties 1 to 5. It is
evident from the order dated December 31, 1994 that the petitioner was an
experienced hand and his resignation had been reluctantly accepted. About six
years’ service has been wiped away because of the momentary indiscretion of the
petitioner in submitting resignation letter evidently under some mental strain.
It appears that the petitioner has already withdrawn his gratuity and provident
fund. In the interest of justice and to ameliorate the hardship sustained by the
petitioner and keeping in view the relative financial conditions of the parties,
taking a very humane view of the matter, it is thought fit and proper to direct
the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees) as an
ex gratia payment to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to start
afresh any new opening.
6. With these observations, the writ application is disposed of and the
opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand
rupees) to the petitioner within a period of three months.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
D.P. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J.
8. I agree.