^. araft BFI,IE;U •:' •' ^ | l£W ^.^^_^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUSEAT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) -cs?_ \r)^"LI WRIT PETITIOHNO... '.•^y.-^..OF 2007. PETITIONER ^^-^> \'.^•"^ ») y .•yyt^-'" rio^;"" .^•"' ' VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 3. VED PRAKASH AGRAWAL Aged about 50 years S/o.Late Ram Saran Das Agrawal Ex.Branch Manager,Chando Branch Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Baak PO & T\]S- Balrampur, Dist.Sargi^CG R/o.Katraj Bhawan, Sangam Galley Ambikapur(C.G)^;^ -^ip^'-)c?(c^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh .2. Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank f\^, Through: Chaimiari Bijay Marg, Sangam Galley Ambikapur(Chhattisgarh) Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Branch Chando PO & Tehsil Balrampur Dist: Sarguja (CG) Central Bank oflndia, Tbrough Gl\a.ivi^£?t^^ ^ . K.O. Mnr.'twA^. Poi'^fr ^'lu-nn-laA^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIORARI/MANDAMUS AND OR ANY OTHER WMT/fS) -•^'=(=03-1 r^TTTTi.TtX-imTmT'^il^TT^T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1293 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1^}1 Ved Prakash Agrawal State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Jitendra Pali counsel forthe petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy PL for respondent No.1. Shri P.S. Koshy counsel for respondents 2 & 3. Shri B.D. Guru counsel for respondent No.4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (^.09.2011) Chailenge in this petiti3h is to the orderdated 27.2.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No,2/Bank accepting the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 7.9.2004 vide Annexure P-1 with effect from 11 .3.2006. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner entered in the serviee of respondent No.2/Bank on 1.10.1982 and was given various assignments to deal with. On 7.9.2004 he submitted an application to the Chairman of the Bank seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 6.2.2005 or 15.9.2005 or as per its own discretion. On 1.7.2005 the petitioner again submitted the second resignation but it was withdrawn by him on 30.8.2005 vide Annexure P-2 mentioning the family problems to be the reason there-for. Further case of the petitioner is that on 25.12.2005 vide Annexure R-9 he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement which he withdrew on 23.2.2006 stating that he wished to retire in the year 2016 i.e. the year of his superannuation. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.2.2006 the order impugned (Annexure P-4) has been passed accepting the resignation ofthe petitioner with effect from 11.3.2006 ignoring .the fact that earlier --_^^SS£2k^^^ f/f^, S' 6S».. 1 1 —2-— he had withdrawn his resignation letters and therefore his application dated 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) could not be acted upon and that the order impugned has been passed just to get rid of the petitioner taking advantage of his so-called pending application dated 7.9.2004. He submits that once the petitioner had submitted the second application for withdrawal of resignation on 1.7.2005, the first application becomes ineffective. Moreover, when the second application dated 1.7.2005 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 30.8.2005 and then again on 25.12.2005 vide Annexure R-9, he tendered his resignation and withdrew the same on 23.2.2006 vide Annexure P-3. He submits that resignation of the petitioner dated 7.9.2004 has been accepted by the Bank on 27.2.2006 i.e. almost one and a half year after submission thereof which is nothing but an arbitrary action on the part of respondenVBank especially when they were well aware of the subsequent applications submitted by the petitioner tendering his resi^eition and then withdrawing the same. He submits that resignation letters of the petitioner being conditional cannot be termed as resignation tetters in its true sense and that being so the respondent No.2 /Bank should not have taken any action on his application dated 7.9.2004. Counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the order impugned is liable to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages. He placed his retiance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 701, in the matter of K.L.E. Society v. Dr. R.R. Patil and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 278 and in the matter of Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 314. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the respondent/Bank was aware of the subsequent development in particular two subsequent applications being submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and then withdrawn by him, being a noble employer it should have clarified from him before passing the order impugned as to whether he wished to continue in service or not. •f'f.f ^?-, tS-s... -~%^\ :';> ^ '^fis;^18 / s--- -3 4. Reptying to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been argued by counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that the order impugned has been passed strictly in accordance with law as the petitioner never withdrew his application seeking voluntary retirement dated 7.9.2004. According to him, in his application dated 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) itself, the petitioner had offered two dates to the Chairman of the Bank for accepting his application and that being the situation the respondenVBank is not at fault in passing the order impugned. He submits that conduct of the petitioner makes it clear that he was not interested to serve with the Bank and that is why he was time and again submitting his resignation letters and then withdrawing the same even without assigning any sufficient reason for that. He submits that the track reeord of the petitioner is not very good which makes it clear that perhaps he was not interested to continue in service and that is why has chosen to resign. According to him, the titioner is not entitled for any relief much less the relief of back wages. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.l/State submits that the State has no role whatsoever to play in the case in hand and therefore he has nothing to say before this Court. Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that as the Central Bank of India is the sponsored bank of respondent No.2, he adopts the stand taken by it. He submits that in an important organisation like Bank if an officer submits resignation letters again and again and then withdraws the same, shows his insincerity to the Bank and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief prayed for by him. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. lt is an admitted position that the first application dated 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was never withdrawn by him. In the said application it is mentioned that on account of his ill-heatth the petitioner was unable to serve in Chando Branch. It is also mentioned in it that previously also w . ..,;e-' ¥- -'? he had given the application for his transfer and as no heed was paid to it, he again requested for his transfer. He had also requested the Chairman by way of his application that if his transfer was not possible, he may be given voluntary retirement with effect from 6.2.2005 or 15.9.2005 or as per its own discretion. From the tenor of the said application it is apparent that the same cannot be termed to be an application for voluntary retirement. However, it appears that the representation of the petitioner showing his grievance before the authority and then putting a condition that if his grievance is not settled and he is not transferred from Chando Branch in that case his application may be treated as his resignation. Further, on 1.7.2005, the petitioner submitted another application seeking voluntary retirement though copy thereof has not been filed either by the petitioner or by the respondents but this factual aspect has not been disputed by anyone. This second app()ication dated 1.7.2005 was withdrawn on 30.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) and while withdrawing the said application it has been mentioned by the petitioner that he was so due to his family reasons. It is also revealed that on 25.12.2005 vide Annexure R-9,the petitioner again submitted an application mentioning in it that he wanted to retire with effect from 2.4.2006 and that if his grievance was settled bonafidely and he was given equal treatment, he might withdraw the said application. This third application seeking voluntary retirement was again withdrawn by the petitioner on 23.2.2006 vide Annexure P-3 mentioning the ground that he wanted to retire in the year 2016 i.e. the year of his superannuation. In stead of considering various applications of the petitioner, based on his fist application dated 7.9.2004 (Mnexwe P-1), the order impugned dated 27.2.2006 (Annexure P-4) has been passed by respondent/Bank retiring him witheffect from 11.3.2006. 8. It is settled legal position that application tendering resignation can be withdrawn by the employee before prospective date from which his resignation would be effected. In the case in hand, technically it can be said that the petitioner never withdrew his application dated 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) but the fact remains that on subsequent occasions i.e. 1.7.2005 and 25.12.2005 he again submitted his •-£- applications seeking voluntary retirement which came to be withdrawn by him on 30.8.2005 and 23.2.2006. tt is not the case of the Bank that subsequent applications dated 1.7.2005, 25.12.2005, 30.8.2005 and 23.2.2006 were not submitted by the petitioner. Once the petitioner submitted subsequent applications seeking voluntary retirement with effect from different dates and then withdrew the same, it would be too technical for the authority concerned to accept his first application dated 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-1). Contents of the application dated 7.9.2004 cannot be construed to convey any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish his office accompanied by any act of relinquishment. Rather from the said application it appears that it was a conditional application amounting to a threatened offer to tender resignation on account of exasperation or frustration born out of an idea that he was being harassed unnecessarily. At any rate, the effect of the said application coutd not be given undue importance dehors the context. 9. The principal question to be answered in the case in hand is whether the apptication submitted by the petitioner on 7.9.2004 seeking voluntary retirement could be construed to mean or amounted to resignation in its true spirit or was it merely an expression of his intention to resign. It is spelled out from the documents on record that *- all the applications seeking voluntary retirement given subsequent to the apptication dated 7.9.2004 were taken back by the petitioner. Undisputedty, though the application dated 7.9.2004 for the said purpose was not withdrawn by the petitioner yet the contents of the same, if taken in its entirety, make the picture clear that it was not out of the free will of the petitioner rather the main thrust of the petitioner in it was his transfer from Chando and if that request did not receive favourable response then he could be given voluntary retirement either w.e.f 6.2.2005, 15.9.2005 or as per the discretion of the authority itself. Thus, unhesitatingly, it can be said that the application dated 7.9.2004 given by the petitioner could not be termed as the one seeking voluntary retirement. 10. Regulation 10 of Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Adhikari evam Karamchari Seva Viniyam, 2000 provides for resignation or "*<Y -&- abandonment of service by giving three months' notice in writing to the appointing authority or three months salary in lieu of notice. In the case in hand, if the words used in his application (Annexure P-1) seeking votuntary retirement are seen in its entirety, it becomes apparent that it was simply conveying his grievance rather than tendering a resignation as is required under Regulation 10. Thus it can be said that intention of the petitioner was in fact not to resign but somehow get his grievance settted by the authorities. Further, the moment petitioner submits subsequent conditional applications seeking voluntary retirement; the first application would not be given any effect especially when the subsequent applications are within the knowledge of the respondenVBank. Thus, action of the respondenVBank appears to be too technical in accepting the application of the petitioner by the order impugned after about one and a half years of its submission. Accordingly, the order impugned (Annexure P-4) is liable to be set aside. 11. Next question involved in this case is as to the entitlement of the petitioner with respect to consequential benefits such as back wages. Record goes to show that the petitioner is outof employment from 11.3.2006 till date. In such a situation, it would be too harsh for this Court to saddle the respondent No.2/Bank with the liability of paying consequential benefits to the petitioner especially when it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not serve it during this period and looking to the factual scenario involved herein it appears to be a salubrious exercise if the relief with respect to the consequential benefits is moulded suitably. Doing so, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is awarded some lump sum amount as compensation in lieu of back wages for the hardships faced by him all along. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 2,00,000 (two lacs) as compensation in addition to litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 15,000. 11. Petition is accordingly allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge