IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4406 of 2002
Date of Decision: 10.12.2008
State of Punjab and others .... Appellants
vs.
Vinod Guliani .... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla.
Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent.
Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral)
The State of Punjab challenges the judgment and decree
dated 13.09.2001, passed by District Judge, Chandigarh accepting the
appeal filed by the respondent and as a result decreeing his suit.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that order
dated 9.04.1991 accepting his resignation w.e.f. 19.04.1984 is illegal, null
and void. On facts the respondent alleged that he submitted a letter of
resignation, effective from 1st July, 1984. However, as no order was
passed thereon, he withdrew his resignation on 19th February, 1985.
Despite withdrawal of the resignation, he was not allowed to join duty and
therefore, served a legal notice calling upon the appellants to allow him to
perform his duties. All of a sudden, on 9.04.1991, an order was passed
accepting his resignation w.e.f. 19.04.1984. The appellants opposed the
prayer in suit by asserting that after submitting his resignation, the
respondent had abandoned his services and as he did not make a request
for withdrawal, within the notice period, the resignation was rightly
accepted.
On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the
RSA No.4406 of 2002 -2-
following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether no cause of action has accrued? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
5. Whether no notice u/s 80 CPC has been served
upon defendants? OPD.
6. Relief.
After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the
arguments addressed, by counsel for the parties,the trial court dismissed
the suit by holding that as the resignation was not withdrawn within the
notice period, the respondent was not entitled to any relief. It was also held
that the suit was barred by time. Aggrieved by the aforementioned
judgment, the respondent filed an appeal. The District Judge, Chandigarh
accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
trial court and decreed the suit by holding that as the resignation was
withdrawn well before it was considered and accepted, the order accepting
the resignation was illegal and void.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent should
have withdrawn the resignation within the notice period i.e., up to July,
1984. As the request for withdrawal was received after expiry of the notice
period, its subsequent withdrawal seven months thereafter, is irrelevant. It
is further argued that after 1984, the respondent did not report for duty and
in essence abandoned his service. The respondent, therefore, cannot be
heard to urge that by acceptance of the letter of resignation on 5th April,
1991, a fresh cause of action accrued.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it
is a settled position in law that for a resignation to come into effect it has to
be preceded by an order of acceptance and till such time as the request for
resignation is not accepted or rejected an employee may withdraw his
RSA No.4406 of 2002 -3-
resignation. It is submitted that the resignation dated 19.04.1984 was
withdrawn on 19.02.1985, whereas it was acepted on 5.04.1991 five years
thereafter. The respondent’s wife Smt. Neeru Guliani, an employee of the
appellant-department submitted a similar request for resignation followed
by a similar request for withdrawal. In her case also, the resignation was
accepted three years after the letter of resignation and two and half years
after its withdrawal. Smt. Neeru Guliani filed a suit challenging the
acceptance of her resignation. In her case the trial court decreed the suit
and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The State of Punjab
filed Regular Second Appeal No.2093 of 2003 which was dismissed on 26th
February, 2003. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab
was also dismissed. It is therefore, argued that in view of the facts referred
to hereinabove, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab be dismissed.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate
court.
As noticed in the narrative of the facts, the appellant submitted
his resignation on 19th April, 1984. The resignation was to come into effect
on 1st July, 1984. Admittedly, the letter of resignation was not considered
by the appellants and remained pending. On 19.02.1985, the respondent
withdrew his resignation. The withdrawal of the resignation did not elicit
any response from the appellants who continued to sleep over the matter.
The respondent thereafter began serving notices calling upon
the appellants to allow him to join duty. It appears that these notices jolted
the appellants from their slumber and in an apparent attempt to conceal
their culpable negligence passed an order dated 5.04.1991, accepting the
resignation w.e.f. 19.04.1984. The relevant dates referred to hereinabove,
make it crystal clear that on 5th February, 1991, the request for resignation
was no longer pending. The appellants, therefore, accepted an empty,
RSA No.4406 of 2002 -4-
meaningless piece of paper that had ceased to exist. The first appellate,
therefore, did not commit any error in reversing the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court and decreeing the suit filed by the respondent. It
would also be necessary to mention here that the respondent’s wife Smt.
Neeru Guliani, an employee with the appellant-department submitted a
similar resignation. In her case also the appellants kept the matter pending
for more than three years. The suit filed by her challenging the
acceptance of letter of resignation was decreed, the first appeal and
second appeal were dismissed as also the Special Leave Petition. She is
admittedly working with the appellants. The case as set out by the
respondent in the present case is in no manner different from the case of
Smt. Neeru Guliani.
The contention raised by the counsel for the appellants that
the application for withdrawal was not submitted within the notice period
and as the respondent has not performed his duties, is meaningless and
does not merit acceptance. A letter of resignation, its acceptance or
rejection are positive acts to be performed by departmental officers. Their
failure to accept the resignation for more than seven years is surprising and
borders on culpable negligence.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial
question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. However,
as accepted by the counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the
respondent, he would not claim any back wages. His period of absence
would, however, count towards computing the length of service for the
purpose of pension etc. No costs.
10.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge