IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.489 of 2009 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ED), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, 2. THE CHIEF INSPECTION PERSONNEL MANAGER (CIPM), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL SERVICES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, 4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL SERVICES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, 6. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, AND 7. SENIOR MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI Versus 1.GANESHWAR ROY @ GUNESHWAR ROY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SON OF SRI PHIDI ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KARIYOUT, P.O.-LARIYOUT, P.S./LOUKAHI, DISTT. MADHUBANI (BIHAR), PRESENT RESIDING IN QR. NO. B-56, BARAUNI REFINERY TOWNSHIP, BEGUSARAI ..PETITIONER / RESPONDENT, 2. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR (REFINERIES), 7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3, AND 3. THE DIRECTOR (REFINERIES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., 7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 3 …… RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 …….PROFORMA RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 30.04.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ petitioner by holding the post of Deputy Manager, Inspection in Barauni Refinery submitted a letter of resignation on 25.10.2008 to the Executive Director through proper channel. He stated that he wanted to resign due to unavoidable personal reasons. As per conditions of service, thirty days’ notice was 2 necessary for submitting resignation. He, therefore, requested that for meeting the shortfall of the required notice period of thirty days, that is, for 20 days, he prayed for deduction from his accumulated earned leave. On 1.11.2008, by Annexure-3 letter attached to the writ petition, after referring the discussions held on 31.10.2008 with the Executive Director, he withdrew his resignation. The endorsement that the above letter of withdrawal of resignation received on 1.11.2008 by the Corporation can be seen from the above letter. Thereafter, on 3.11.2008, the Corporation wrote to the petitioner that his resignation is accepted in principle, subject to final settlement of the dues payable to the petitioner. We quote the relevant portion of the letter as under- “This has reference to the resignation from the services of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Barauni Refinery submitted by you vide application dated 25-10-08. Your resignation has been accepted in principle, however, your release shall be subject to final settlement of dues payable by you to IOCL.” 3 On receipt of the letter dated 3.11.2008, the petitioner wrote that even though the Corporation has accepted his resignation, he is making an appeal to continue him in the Corporation after cancelling his resignation, but even before that on 1.11.2008 he had sent the letter of withdrawal. The letter dated 1.11.2008 reads as under:- “This has reference to the discussion I had with you on 31.10.2008 on the subject. With due respect, I would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my resignation letter submitted on 25.10.2008. Sir, I regret for my hasty decision of resignation and assure that I shall not repeat the same and will not leave the organization. I did this mistake due to mental depression and anxiety for which I repent too much. My family members and myself have been repenting too much for the wrong decision. My family is in deep distress due to the present situation. I request you to kindly save myself and my family by pardoning me. I confirm that I do not have any job outside India either long term or short term or half yearly. As I am having long Inspection Experience of 12 years of hard work and consequently I assure that I shall not issue 4 any wrong recommendation. With due honor I again pray you to kindly take merciful view and to please accord approval for cancellation of my resignation letter dated 25.10.2008. I request your honor once again to kindly pardon me and to please allow me to serve this great organization. For this act of kindness, I shall be ever grateful to you.” It is the case of the writ petitioner that since he had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance, his resignation had no effect at all. That was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge held as follows:- “As a result of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that petitioner had withdrawn his offer of resignation before his jural relationship as an employee come to an end and in such a situation the respondent authorities committed error of law in giving effect to petitioner’s offer of resignation which was already withdrawn. Hence, the acceptance of petitioner’s resignation by the respondent authorities and cessation of his employment on that account are found to be illegal. The impugned order accepting the 5 resignation of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. As a result, the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits.” The contention of the appellants is that even though acceptance of the resignation was communicated on 3.11.2008 but it was already accepted on 29.10.2008 itself. To prove the above contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied on Annexure-A, the letter attached to the counter affidavit, showing that the resignation letter addressed by the petitioner to the Corporation wherein the Executive Director had made an endorsement – “Pl process”. The words “Pl process” are not indicative that the resignation is accepted in principle. In fact, even according to the Annexures attached to the Memorandum of Appeal, it can be seen that the writ petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings at that time. The enquiry was concluded. At that time, his resignation was given. The words “Pl process” may indicate that the Office may make a noting whether resignation can be accepted or whether the disciplinary proceedings can be continued. Question of 6 settling the dues also has to be considered. Even on the letter dated 3.11.2008 it is not stated that prior to 3.11.2008, resignation of the petitioner from the services of the Corporation was accepted and it was communicated to him only on 3.11.2008. The letter dated 1.11.2008 was accepted by the Corporation. There is no dispute in it. Even prior to the letter dated 1.11.2008 the resignation was accepted on previous date, it would have been mentioned in the letter dated 3.11.2008, but that is also not mentioned. Therefore, the contention that the resignation letter was accepted in principle on 29.11.2008 cannot be accepted. The resignation letter has to be accepted or rejected. There is no dispute that it has been accepted in principle. It is true that in North Zone Cultural Centre & Anr. Vrs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2003 (3) Supreme 532, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after acceptance of the resignation, even if there is some delay in communication, that will not affect the process of resignation. Here by letter dated 1.11.2008, petitioner 7 withdrew his resignation. Till that date, resignation letter was not accepted. Even till letter dated 3.11.2008, the Corporation did not say that his resignation was accepted before the letter dated 1.11.2008 was received by it. There is no reason or evidence to show that it has been accepted on principle before 1.11.2008. The endorsement on the resignation letter `Pl process’ is not acceptance of resignation. Resignation was accepted on 3.11.2008 after it was withdrawn. No valid grounds are mentioned to take a different view on the finding of facts entertained by the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal. In the above circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. dk ( J.B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )