IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27178 of 2007 Between: N. Adikrishnaiah s/o Late Sri N. Srinivasulunaidu Mosque Road, V.V. Mahal Road, Tirupati-1, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, rep by its Director 2 Sri G. Subrahmanyam, S/o G. Gunnaiah Sri venkateswara Institute of Medial Sciences, Tirupati. ..RESPONDENTS) Counsel for the Petitioner:Mrs. G.Jhansi for Mr.B.Adinarayana Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Mrs.P.Sarada Counsel for respondent No.2: P.Naveen Rao The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the short controversy is whether the action of respondent No.2 in accepting the resignation letter dated 01-12-2007 of the petitioner was proper and legal. The petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer with respondent No.1. The pleadings in the case show that certain misunderstandings crept in between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The friction between them appeared to have got aggravated when respondent No.2 expressed his displeasure over delay in submitting the budget estimates and when the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to go to Hyderabad in connection with an official duty. When the petitioner was summoned to the office of respondent No.2, the latter allegedly shouted at the petitioner and expressed that he should resign. The petitioner, who appeared to have been upset over the happenings in the Office of respondent No.2, offered his resignation through letter dated 01-12-2007, which reads as under- 1.12.2007 To The Director, SVIMS, Tirupati Respected Sir, It is to inform that the budget estimates will be prepared by the Accounts Department after getting their requirements from the various administrative Departments. After getting the information from various Departments, the Accounts Department prepares the Budget estimates and submitted to you on 10.11.07 and you have suggested directions to be made. After incorporating those corrections made by the Director and resubmitted to the Director’s Office on 17.11.07. But the Director was out of station. So the AAO is not the only person responsible for the delay of the preparation of the budget estimates. But the Director scolded me and demanded my resignation. Hence, I had tendered my resignation for the post of AAO. You may decide whether to accept or not. Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, Sd/- N.Adikrishnaiah Asst.Accounts Officer SVIMS, Tirupati” Respondent No.2, thereafter, issued show cause notice on 06-12-2007 to the petitioner calling upon his explanation as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. While submitting his explanation on 13-12-2007, the petitioner made a request to respondent No.2 to permit him to withdraw his resignation letter dated 01-12-2007. This explanation was admittedly received by respondent No.2 in the forenoon of 13-12-2007. However in the afternoon, the petitioner was served with proceedings dated 12-12-2007, whereby respondent No.2 accepted the petitioner’s resignation letter. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition questioning the said proceedings. He also filed W.P.No.2969 of 2009 questioning initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. On 23-04-2009, when this writ petition came up along with the other writ petition, the petitioner requested for adjournment of the writ petitions by undertaking to tender unconditional apology to respondent No.2. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were adjourned. Today, the learned Standing Counsel reported to this Court that the petitioner tendered unconditional apology and respondent No.2 had withdrawn the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Accordingly, W.P.No.2969 of 2009 was closed. The facts narrated above clearly show that tendering of resignation by the petitioner and initiation of disciplinary proceedings by respondent No.2 are offshoot of the common incident taken place on 01-12-2007. The tenor of offer of resignation, reproduced hereinabove, clearly shows that the petitioner was mentally disturbed and in a fit of anger, he appeared to have submitted his resignation letter. But as the time passed by, the petitioner evidently realized his folly and requested respondent No.2 to permit him to withdraw his offer of resignation. Though the petitioner’s offer of resignation was stated to be accepted in proceedings dated 12-12-2007, it is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said proceedings were served on the petitioner in the afternoon of 13-12-2007. In my considered view, respondent No.2 ought to have reconsidered his decision to accept the resignation, in view of the petitioner’s request to permit him to withdraw the resignation, which was received by respondent No.2 even before proceedings dated 12-12-2007 were served on the petitioner. At any rate, having considered the facts of the case in their entirety, I am of the view that grave injustice and hardship would be caused to the petitioner if his offer of resignation made, while he was in a mentally disturbed condition is accepted. In this view of the matter, proceedings dated 12-12-2007 are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is deemed to have been reinstated and in continuous service without any break. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th June, 2009 vrn