CWP No.19590 of 2003.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19590 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2010 **** Dr. Prahlad Ram Chaudhary . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer by the Government of Punjab vide order dated May 28, 1978 on ad hoc basis. While working as such he was selected by the Public Service Commission and given appointment on regular basis vide appointment letter dated 11.03.1983 (Annexure P3). (2). According to the petitioner his mother unfortunately passed away on May 20, 1987 and he without getting the leave sanctioned, went to his home State on May 20, 1987. CWP No.19590 of 2003.doc - 2 – (3). The petitioner was treated absent from duty with effect from the above mentioned date and after a departmental enquiry the consequential dismissal order dated 14th June, 2001 (Annexure P8) has been passed. (4). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (5). It appears that soon after the dismissal order, the petitioner submitted an application/representation (Annexure P9) requesting that his resignation from service may be accepted. (6). The short submission made on behalf of the petitioner is also to the same effect, namely, that instead of causing any stigma of a ‘dismissed employee’, the petitioner’s resignation may be accepted with an undertaking that he shall not claim any monetary benefits. (7). Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab points out that no such application/representation like dated April 15, 2002 (Annexure P9) is on office record and therefore, the belated request for ‘acceptance of resignation’ cannot be considered by the competent authority. (8). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, if so advised, may submit a fresh resignation letter CWP No.19590 of 2003.doc - 3 – with a specific prayer to accept the same retrospectively and also with an undertaking, in writing, that he shall not claim any monetary benefits in the event of acceptance thereof. If such an application along with resignation/undertaking is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month, the State Government is directed to consider the same sympathetically and accept the same by setting aside the dismissal order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P8), however, with a clear stipulation that no service benefit whatsoever shall flow in favour of the petitioner as a result thereto. The needful shall be done preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 29.03.2010 vishal shonkar