IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No.186 Of 2009 Surendra Nath Rai ……… Petitioner Versus District Education Officer, Nainital & Another ………. Respondents Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel, for the State/respondent no. 1. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Date of Judgment: 13.6.2011 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) On 12.9.1991, as has been alleged in the petition, on the pressure caused by some hooligans, petitioner was forced to submit a letter of resignation. In that regard, petitioner did not lodge a First Information Report. He also did not inform the college authorities as regards obtaining of the said letter of resignation by hooligans. He did not communicate with any of the State authorities in connection therewith. On 30.9.1991, purporting to accept the resignation of the petitioner, the college terminated the services of the petitioner. On 4.10.1991, petitioner, for the first time, reacted in relation to the alleged letter of resignation by completely denying to have submitted any such letter of resignation. 2. Annexure 6 to the writ petition is a letter, which was treated as the resignation letter of the petitioner. A look at this letter would make it absolutely clear that the same could not have been obtained by any person, per 2 force, from the petitioner. The story, as made out in the writ petition, that the petitioner was forced by hooligans to submit a resignation letter, is absolutely incorrect. Annexure 6 to the writ petition suggests that brother of one of the students of the college, though did not give in writing that the student will behave in proper manner, but orally made the same known to the petitioner. But despite that the behaviour of the student remained unaltered. In the letter, it was stated that he was asked by another student that the petitioner should resign. That student, by force, obtained a letter from the petitioner to show that the petitioner is willing to be transferred from that college. He was also asking him to submit resignation. Somehow he could avoid giving the resignation. He and his family, in the circumstances, are in quandary as to what should be done by them. By the letter, he asked for assistance. He stated that he is so scared that he is unable to initiate appropriate proceedings. He was thus seeking appropriate decision from the addressee of the letter. He stated that in the circumstances, it is not possible to continue to work with dignity in the post. Accordingly, it is prayed that he may be relieved from the college. 3. The letter, therefore, clearly indicated his intention not to work in the college any further. He stated in clearest of clear term that he is unable to control the students and, accordingly, is of the view that it is no longer possible to work in the college with dignity. He wanted to be relieved from the college and expressly held out the same. All ingredients of a resignation letter were, therefore, squarely present in the said letter, though the word ‘resignation’ was not mentioned. 3 4. As aforesaid, this resignation letter was accepted as far back as on 30.9.1991. In 1992, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad. That writ petition was transferred to this Court, whereupon the same was registered as Writ Petition Service Single No. 6832 of 2001. The petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 24.8.2009 with liberty to file a fresh one. The present writ petition was filed on 9.9.2009. On 9.9.2009, the cause of action of the petitioner, in respect of an action which took place on 30.9.1991, was not surviving. 5. The one and the only question in the writ petition is whether the said letter could be treated as a letter of resignation or not, since it is not the contention in the petition that the said letter, Annexure 6 to the writ petition, was written by the petitioner after 30.9.1991. 6. As aforesaid, all ingredients of a letter of resignation were present in the said letter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rule contemplates a notice period or in the alternative, payment in lieu of the notice period. In the instant case, there is no infraction of the said rule inasmuch as it was contemplated in the letter that it is not possible for the petitioner to discharge duties and, accordingly, he asked for being relieved. If the petitioner has not been paid salary up to 30.9.1991, of course, it shall be open to the petitioner to ask for the same. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in accordance with the rules, the resignation of the petitioner could not be accepted on 4 30.9.1991, because the college, in which the petitioner was working, had long winter vacation. These rules are for the purpose of protecting the students. Infraction of these rules will not make acceptance of the resignation bad. In other words, on the strength of these rules, it was open for the Management of the college to refuse to accept the resignation of the petitioner until such time it could do so in accordance with those rules. But because the Management had accepted the resignation of the petitioner tendered in September 1991, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that such acceptance was improper and, accordingly, a judicial review court shall interfere with the same. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, where it has been held out that a resignation, given by an employee, without giving notice of three months or three months’ pay in lieu of the notice, cannot be treated as valid resignation before the expiry of three months from the date of tendering of the resignation. The fact remains that the petitioner even within three months from the date of submission of the resignation did not withdraw the same. He contended, in what circumstances he had submitted the resignation, but he did not write one single sentence in any of those letters stating, ‘even if I had submitted a resignation, I withdraw the same hereby’. In those circumstances, the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivraj Singh v. Devji Mal Asha Ram Paliwal and Others, 1982 ALL. L.J. 1012, has no application to the facts of this case. 5 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mital, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the period of notice, the employer could not reduce unilaterally. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition. The fact remains that notice period, specified in a Statute governing conditions of employment of Government employees, is to ensure that the employee concerned gets proper opportunity to think over resignation submitted by him. Once he has submitted the resignation, he has every right of withdrawing it. Notice period, mentioned in the statutory rules, ensures that the resignation is not accepted before expiry of the notice period. The employee, who has submitted a resignation, thus gets statutory opportunity during the notice period to think over whether to retain the resignation submitted or to withdraw the same. On 4.10.1991, it was well within the competence of the petitioner to write back and say that the resignation, if any, I have given, I hereby withdraw. He did not, however, do so. He went on to question whether there was in fact a resignation or not? His contention was he has not resigned. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the said case, therefore, does not help the petitioner. 10. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 13.6.2011 Prabodh