JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. The petitioner, I.D. Kaushik had submitted resignation from the Membership of Haryana Public Service Commission on July 1, 1994, copy of which is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, which was accepted by the Governor of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred by Artic!e316(2) of the Constitution of India and which was notified in gazette dated July 2,1994, copy of which is Annexure P-5 to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner after the acceptance of his resignation has impugned the acceptance of the resignation by filing the present writ petition’ and prayed for quashing the notification in so far as it relates to acceptance of his resignation from the Membership of the Haryana Public Service Commission with a further prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents to allow him to continue as a Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission with effect from July 1, 1994 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner before his appointment as a Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission was the Member of the Indian Administrative Service and he had about two years of remaining service. The background of ihe case, according to the petitioner, is that on July 1, 1994 the petitioner alongwith two other Members S/Shri V.S. Chaudhary and Tara Chand was summoned to the office of the Chief Minister, Haryana, where the Chief Minister observed that-some happenings leading to the various press reports and the cancellation of result of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) had tarnished the image of the Commission and the Government. The Chief Minister further observed that the Commission needed to be reconstituted and for that purpose, resignation of all the Members were required. Thereafter, the Chief Minister handed over one copy of ready-made (typed) resignation letter to each of the three Members including the petitioner. However, the petitioner managed to smuggle out the letter of resignation which was handed over to him, copy of which is Annexure P-6 to the writ petition. The resignation letters were promptly signed by S/Shri Tara Chand and V.S. Chaudhary. The petitioner, however, told the Chief Minister that he had about two years of service in the Indian Administrative Service at the time of his appointment as a Member of the Commission and as such he would not resign though he would have no objection to relinquish the Membership and being repatriated to the I.A.S. to serve till his superannuation i.e. 31.1.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to sign the ready-made (typed) resignation letter. However, the petitioner was asked to make separate request for the repatriation to the I.A.S. This proposal was declined by the petitioner saying that he would make a composite request. He further stated that while he was not willing to resign, however, he was willing to submit a request for his reversion/ repatriation to the I.A.S. There was no opposition to the request of the petitioner and accordingly he submitted the resignation in shaky handwriting which was accepted and notified.
4. The impugned notification has been assailed on the ground that the petitioner at no stage had submitted his resignation. In the letter of resignation dated July 1, 1994, copy which is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, the petitioner had made a request that he should be repatriated/taken back to the Indian Administrative Service (herein after referred to as ‘I.A.S.’). The petitioner did so in order to avoid a direct confrontation, particularly with the Chief Minister who had said that the criminal cases would be instituted against those who would not submit their resignation. Moreover, this was done by the petitioner because lie knew that legally he had severed connection with the I.A.S. and therefore, this request was not worth the paper it was written oh as he could not have been reinducted in the I.A.S., he would necessarily continue as a Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short ‘H.P.S.C.’) for the remaining term.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that the petitioner at no stage had tendered any resignation and the acceptance of the so called resignation by the Governor of Haryana, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone, Learned counsel further argued that a bare perusal of Annexure P-4 would show that neither the petitioner had submitted any resignation nor had he conveyed any intention therein that he was resigning from the Membership of the H.P.S.C. Further the case of the petitioner is that if the request of the petitioner made in the letter of resignation, copy which is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, is to be interpreted as a letter of resignation, even then it amounts to conditional resignation. The resignation could only be accepted if the petitioner would have been repatriated to his parent cadre or taken back to the I.A.S. The condition was a technical precedent and was over riding. The resignation could not have been accepted before satisfying the condition itself.
6. Learned counsel had further stressed that the petitioner never “resigned” but had requested to be “relieved”. According to the counsel, the word ‘resignation’ may have certain finality about it but “relieve” was not complete without the petitioner’s repatriation to the I.A.S. As such the petitioner’s composite request either could have been rejected or accepted as a whole. Laying stress on word “and” the petitioner’s counsel further argued that the use of conjunction “and” between the two so-called “independent requests” is significant. The insertion of the word “and” simply extends the preceding clause. According to Standard English Dictionary the meaning of the word “and” is “used to introduce a consequence or aim as a conditional conjunction.” The counsel for the petitioner had therefore, asserted that grammatically speaking, these are also not independent requests, rather they are mutually inter-dependent being relieved from the Haryana Public Service Commission as a necessary consequence of repatriation to the I.A.S., both the events taking place simultaneously.
7. The State of Haryana in order to controvert the stand of the petitioner filed written statements through Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana and Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission.
8. The petitioner was also permitted to file replication in which he had taken the same points as were taken in the writ petition.
9. In reply to the additional affidavit of the petitioner, the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana as well as Sh. P.K. Dass, Joint Secretary filed their separate replies.
10. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and on our direction, the State of Haryana produced the case file for our examination.
11. The moot question that arises for consideration is whether the letter of resignation dated 1.7.1994, copy of which is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, written by the petitioner, is to be deemed to be resignation from the Membership of the H.P.S.C. and can he seek reversion/repatriation to his erstwhile cadre of I.A.S. on the basis of so-called conditional letter of resignation. In order to sort out the controversy, it would be appropriate to examine the Setter of resignation submitted by the petitioner, which reads as under :-
“To
His Excellency the Governor
of Haryana.
Sir,
It is reported in the press today that Shri L.D. Kataria, Ex. Chairman, HPSC has made a report to the Government containing allegations against the Members of the Commission including me. Therefore, I request that I may be relieved of my assignment as Members of the H.P.S.C. and reverted or taken back to the I.A.S. where my service period is available upto 31.1.1996.
Yours faithfully,
Ist July, 1994.
Sd/-
(I.D. KAUSHIK)
Member, H.P.S.C.
Chandigarh.
12. After perusing the letter of resignation, we are of the view that as far as the first portion of the request made by the petitioner in the letter of resignation is concerned, it was a specific request which was accepted by the Governor as reflected in the gazette notification dated July 2, 1994, copy of which is Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. Now the only condition remains in the Annexure P-4 is that ‘he may be reverted or taken back to the I.A.S. cadre.
13. In our view the petitioner had submitted a letter of resignation, copy Annexure P-4, with such a wording knowing that he had severed connection with the IAS and his request was not worth the paper it was written on and he could not have been reinducted in the I.A.S., so that he might take undue advantage of it with a view to claiming his continuance as Member of the H.P.S.C. and that is why he had made a prayer in the writ petition that he be allowed to continue as a Member w.e.f. 1.7.1994. Once the petitioner on his having been appointed as Member of the Commission, has retired from IAS and having received all the retiral benefits, he cannot be repatriated to his erstwhile cadre of I.A.S. As such the plea of the petitioner that two requests made in the letter of resignation, copy Annexure P-4, are mutually inter-dependent being relieved from HPSC as a necessary consequence of repatriation to the IAS, appears to be an afterthought. As already observed, the latter request being redundant, the former request made by the petitioner in Annexure P-4 cannot be said to be dependent of it.
14. One of the pleas raised by the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner alongwith other Members of the Commission was given a ready-made (typed) letter of resignation and they were required to put signatures, thereon. In order to deal with this aspect of the matter, it is apt to reproduce the original letter of resignations contained in the official files produced by the respondent-department relating to S/Shri Tara Chand Khichar, Bhagat Ram and V.S. Chaudhary, which read as under:-
“Resignation of Tara Chand Khichar:
Serious doubts have arisen about the functioning of the HPSC by the manner in which the HCS examinations were conducted in October, 1993. It has attracted a lot of public criticism. To keep the faith of the people alive in public institutions and to maintain the image of the Haryana Public Service Commission, I hereby resign from the office of Member, Haryana Public Service Commission.
Resignation of Shri Bhagat Ram :
Scrapping of HCS examination held in October, 1993 and the controversy and events that led to it have greatly pained me. Consequently, I hereby tender my resignation from the office of Member, Haryana Public Service Commission.
Resignation of Shri V.S Chaudhary:
The conduct of HCS examination in October, 1993 and events aftermath have caused an adverse reflection on impartial functioning expected of a Public Service Commission. To prove that Public interest and service of people is the foremost priority, I hereby tender my resignation as Member of the Public Service Commission.”
15. The petitioner had submitted a hand-written letter of resignation which has been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment.
16. From the perusal of the official file in which the resignations of the aforesaid Members are contained, a clear inference can be drawn that the plea of the petitioner that he was given a ready-made (typed) letter of resignation is without any substance being factually incorrect. Similarly, the plea of the petitioner that he was forced to tender his resignation from the assignment as Member of the Commission is not at all acceptable inasmuch as the language of the resignation letter and the flow of the writing thereon is as such which could not be as a result of coercion or undue pressure. More so, the petitioner being an Ex. I.A.S. Officer and having held such a high constitutional office as Member of the Commission could not be expected to act under coercion or pressure particularly when he tried to vouchsafe his interest by adding redundant material in the letter of resignation.
17. The contention of the petitioner that he never resigned from his assignment as Member of the Commission is without any substance. No doubt in the letter of resignation, Annexure P-4, the word ‘resign’ has not been used by the petitioner but from the wording contained therein it can be safely inferred that the implied intention of the petitioner was to relinquish the assignment as Member of the Commission. Even otherwise, the resignation means spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. The act of relinquishment can be unilateral or bilateral depending on the nature of the office held. Admittedly, in the present case the act of relinquishment was unilateral and complete the moment, it was performed by the petitioner and this view is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Moti Ram v. Parm Dev and Anr., Judgments Today 1993(2) S.C. 251.
18. As held in the earlier part of the judgment that the petitioner did not use the word ‘resignation’ in Annexure P-4, but the text thereof leaves no scope for doubting that the petitioner’s intention was to resign his assignment. Going by dictionary it will be seen that one of the meanings of the word “relieve” is “dismiss from”. He was relieved of his post. “Such verbal gymnastics would appear to be of no avail. Being too grammatical & literal has its pitfalls too. As Shakespeare had said “A rose by other name would smell as sweet.” Suffice it to say that the intention to resign can be conveyed by using the word “relieve” as has been done by the petitioner in Annexure P-4.
19. Now again reverting back to the first part of the letter of resignation, Annexure P-4, whether it amounts to conditional resignation and whether it requires any acceptance or not.
20. There can be no dispute that on having been appointed as Member of the Commission, the petitioner is deemed to have retired from I.A.S. with effect from the dale of his appointment as such in terms of Regulation 5 of the Haryana Public Service Commission (conditions of Service) Regulations, 1972, which reads as under:-
“A member who on the date of his appointment to the Commission was in the service of Central or a State Government shall be deemed to have retired from such service w.e.f. the date of his appointment.”
21. We are of the considered view that the petitioner on his having been appointed as Member of the Commission, has lost his lien in the I.A.S. cadre and as such he cannot be repatriated to that cadre. Moreso, the petitioner after his appointment as Member of the Commission had received all his retiral benefits which were released by the Haryana Government vide its order dated 8th April, 1994. In this view of the matter, the second portion of the letter of resignation, copy Annexure P-4, submitted by the petitioner becomes redundant being superfluous.
22. Now coming to the other plea of the petitioner that he was to be repatriated to I.A.S. in view of the alleged conditional letter of resignation, Annexure P-4.
23. In order to answer this question, we have to examine Article 316 of the Constitution of India and as per proviso (a) to Article 316(2), a Member of the Public Service Commission may resign his office and there is no requirement of acceptance by an authority meaning thereby the moment a Member of the Public Service Commission, by writing under his hand, resigns his office and the moment it comes from the hand of the author to the addressee, it comes effective. Proviso (a) to Article 316(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under:-
“(a) A member of a Public Service Commission may, by writing under his hand, addressed in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission to the President and in the case of a State Commission to the Governor of the State resign his office.”
The provision of Article 316(2) is parimateria with the proviso (a) to Article 217 of the Constitution of India relating to Appointment and Conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court which reads as under:-
“(a) A Judge may, by writing under his hand, addressed to the President, resign his office.”
Once the petitioner had made a request in the letter of resignation, Annexure P-4 that he be relieved of his assignment as Member of the Commission, his implied intention was to relinquish the charge of the post of Member and his request was rightly treated as resignation by the Haryana Government. As observed earlier, he was not forced to make such a request, rather he made this request on his own volition without any coercion or pressure. The petitioner, who has such a vast administrative experience to his credit, ought to have known that if a person resigns, seeks voluntary retirement or is deemed to have retired, the same consequence follows viz. exit from or severance of the relation with the service or office held. The degree of finality too is the same in all these three situations inasmuch as the consequence is reversible at the discretion of the competent authority unless it is impliedly or explicitly disable from doing so, as for example in the instant case where a person, who has held office of Member of a Public Service Commission, becomes ineligible for service under the Government of India or the Government of a State by virtue of the bar imposed by Article 319 of the Constitution of India.
24. None of the authorities cited by the petitioner is of any help to the petitioner being distinguishable on facts.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.