IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27493 of 2007 Between: Lt.Vinay Tiwari, No.05649 N S/o.U.N.Tiwari r/o.Jogapur village, Ajgara Ranigunj Post Lalgunj Tehsil, Pratapgarh,Uttarpradesh, India posted in the unit of Named Indian Naval Ship Eastern Naval Command, Visakhaptnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of india., through the secretary,Ministry of Defence, Govt of India., New Delhi 2 The chief of the Naval Headquarters, New Delhi 3 The Chief of the Personnel, Naval Headquarters New Delhi 4 The Flag officer, Commanding in Chief, Easter Zone Navanl Command, Visakhapatnam 5 Lieutenant Commanding /Commanding officer Indian Navanl Ship Cannore, Eastern Naval Command Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to direct the respondents to decide the matter onthe representation submitted by the petitioner dated on 5.11.2007 (Exhibit No.7) and relieve the petitioner from the duties and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.GAJULAVENKATESWARA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27493 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner joined Indian Navy as a Lieutenant in 2001. Thereafter, he earned the promotion as Sub- Lieutenant. He was kept on duty on Indian Naval Ship, Cannanore, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam. On 20.10.2007, he was granted leave for 34 days. On the request of the petitioner, the leave was extended up to 11.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner sent telegrams for further extension of the leave. On 05.11.2007, the petitioner forwarded his letter of resignation in the prescribed form to the 1st respondent, stating certain reasons. Alleging that the petitioner did not report to duty, even after the expiry of the sanctioned leave, the 5th respondent is said to have declared the petitioner as a deserter. The petitioner had approached this Court, with a prayer to direct respondents to decide the issue relating to his resignation. The petitioner contends that under the relevant provisions of the Navy Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder, it is competent for an officer or sailor to submit his resignation and the competent authority is under obligation to examine the same, without any unwarranted delay. He contends that the circumstances, under which he was placed, forced him to submit resignation and the delay in acceptance of the same is leading to several compilations. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner did not report to duty, even after expiry of the sanctioned leave. As regards the submission of resignation letter by the petitioner, it is stated that the same was received on board ship on 20.11.2007 and that the further action would be taken in accordance with law. Sri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was forced to submit resignation, unable to overcome certain difficulties in his personal life, and even after the submission of resignation, the respondents have initiated punitive steps. He further submits that Section 14 of the Act confers a right upon an officer or sailor to submit resignation, and the absence of an officer, pending consideration of the resignation, cannot be treated as unauthorized, much less, can it entail in disciplinary proceedings. He also submits that an early disposal of the application for resignation would bring about certainty into the matter. Smt. Rajitha, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the submission of resignation by the petitioner, by itself, does not relieve him from his obligation to comply with the directions, be it, as regards reporting to duty, on expiry of the sanctioned leave, or obeying the directions issued by the superiors. She contends that it is too pre-mature for the petitioner, to seek any indulgence by this Court, inasmuch as the resignation is yet to be examined by the competent authority. The petitioner joined Naval Defence Academy, after successful performance in the competitive examination held by the Union Public Service Commission. Hardly within 6 years, his enthusiasm appears to have faded away, for one reason or the other. While on leave, sanctioned by the Flag Officer Naval Command, the petitioner forwarded his resignation. Even by the time, the application was considered by the competent authority, the leave expired and the failure of the petitioner to report to duty naturally entailed in certain consequences. The validity or otherwise of the same is not the subject matter of this writ petition. Section 14 of the Act mandates that an officer or sailor shall be under obligation to serve the Navy, till he is discharged with disgrace, dismissed, permitted to resign, or released from service. While for the officers, the power to accept the resignation is conferred upon the Central Government, for sailors, the competent authority is prescribed officer. The petitioner submitted his resignation in the prescribed form on 05.11.2007, and the same was received by the respondents on 20.11.2007 on board ship. The counter affidavit is not clear as to whether and if so, when it was forwarded to the 1st respondent, the competent authority, for acceptance. The anxiety of the petitioner for early action on the application for resignation is understandable, in the context of the developments, that have taken place in the recent past. A proclamation was given, declaring that the petitioner is a deserter. Corresponding warrants were also issued. The compatibility of such an action, even while the letter of resignation is under consideration, is to be examined in a different set of proceedings, or by the respondents themselves. This much, however, can be said that whatever be the prerogative of the 1st respondent to accept or refuse to accept the resignation submitted by a Naval Officer, the application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Many a time, undue delay would defeat the very purpose of submission of resignation. If there exists any valid reasons for not acceptance of resignation, the same need to be communicated to the concerned officer, so that, he would either reconcile to the situation to continue in the organization, or seek redressal of his grievance. Uncertainty in the matter would not be in the interests of the concerned officer or the Naval force. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on the letter of resignation, dated 05.11.2007, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the result of such decision to the petitioner immediately thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 09.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27493 of 2007 Date: 09.04.2008 JSU