THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.156 of 2004 ORDER: This case demonstrates as to how a duty-minded Professor in an esteemed organization like Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachara Sabha, Chennai, respondent No.1 herein (for short ‘the Sabha’), had to suffer on account of her being principled and determined, to maintain the standards in the organization and to uphold its dignity. Tears, in fact, rollout if one peruses the letters she addressed to this Court in quite large number, stating the penury to which she was subjected, and begging for an early disposal of the case. The narration of events ever since she was joined the service of the Sabha as a Faculty Member would show how difficult it is for a principled person to survive in the contemporary society. The petitioner joined the Sabha as Lecturer in the year 1981 at its Hyderabad Center. Thereafter, she was selected and promoted as Reader in the year 1989 and was posted at Post Graduate Complex of the Sabha at Madras. In August 1997, she was selected and appointed as Professor and was transferred to Cochin. When her probation was extended in the post of Professor, she had to approach Kerala High Court and it is stated that she was made to withdraw the writ petition with a promise that she would be transferred back to Madras. Contrary to that assurance, she was said to have been transferred to Dharwad even while advertising the post of Professor at Madras. That gave rise to the filing of another writ petition in Madras High Court and it is stated that she was made to withdraw that writ petition, on condition that she would be transferred to Hyderabad. The Regulations framed by the Sabha for conduct of academic courses provide for 75% of minimum attendance for the students in M.Phil Course for appearing in the examination. The Head of the Department is conferred with the discretion to condone the shortage to an extent of 10%. The petitioner wanted to implement this provision strictly. According to her, two students, by name Neelkant and Smt.Meenakshi, did not have even 50% of attendance and as such, she refused to accord permission. On 27.11.2003, she is said to have received a phone call from Hyderabad Center of the Sabha to allow such students by collecting penalty of Rs.500/- each. On her part, the petitioner replied stating that such a procedure would not be conducive for the institution and the other students who were denied the permission would agitate. On 28.12.2003, she received a fax message of the approval letter from respondent No.1 to permit those two candidates to appear in the examination. Unable to bear this, being the Head of the Department and the Professor, the petitioner addressed a detailed letter, dated 29.12.2003, stating that it would not at all be in the interest of the institution to condone the attendance or to deviate from the Rules and if the Sabha intends to deviate from the Rules, she would better choose to resign. This was faxed to respondent No.1 and on the same day, it was accepted. On the next day, i.e. on 30.12.2003, the petitioner addressed another detailed letter explaining the circumstances under which she had offered to resign, but stated that her intention was only to impress upon the authorities to improve the standards and enhance the dignity of the institution. This did not find favour with anyone and ultimately, she was relieved from duties. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is stated that the matter was placed before Sasi Parishad of the Sabha and that the acceptance of resignation was approved at its meeting held on 24.01.2004. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the proceedings, through which her resignation was accepted and approved. She contends that the letter was addressed by her only to impress upon the respondents to discourage the practice of ignoring the provision that stipulates the minimum attendance and without paying attention to it, the resignation was accepted instantly. She contends that according to the Service Rules of the Sabha (for short ‘the Rules’), a notice of minimum three months is required to be issued either by the employee or by the Sabha, for termination of service and that there does not exist any provision for waiver thereof. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the writ petition was filed without making any representation to the management, for redressal. As to the condition of minimum of 75% attendance, it is stated that respondent No.1 considered the matter in view of the special circumstances and condoned the shortage for two students. According to him, the petitioner cannot question the power of the Sabha to condone the shortage of attendance on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. For the averment of the petitioner that her effort was only to maintain discipline in the organization, respondent No.1 states that the petitioner herself has disobeyed the orders of the superior authorities. It is also stated that on an earlier occasion also, she offered to resign on the ground that the students detained by her were permitted to write examination and on persuasion, she has withdrawn her resignation. Respondent No.1 admitted that Rule 22 of the Rules of the Sabha (for short ‘the Rules’) provides for three months notice. It is, however, stated that the requirement as to three months advance notice applies only for termination of service by way of disciplinary action and not in cases of resignation. It is stated that no illegality is committed in accepting the resignation of the petitioner, either by the Registrar of the Sabha or by the Sasi Parishad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner joined the Sabha in the year 1982 as Lecturer and thereafter, she was promoted as Reader and Professor. After she became Professor, her trouble started when she worked. Twice she had to file writ petitions in the High Courts of Kerala and Madras and withdraw the same on an assurance given by the respondents. That, however, is not immediately relevant for the purpose of this case. She functioned as a Professor at Hyderabad Center of the Sabha. For the M.Phil Course, the relevant Rules provide for minimum of 75% of attendance for a student to appear in the examination and the Head of the Department is conferred with the power to condone the deficiency, to the extent of 10%. The petitioner did not permit two students, by name Neelkant and Smt.Meenakshi, to appear in the examination, since they were having less than 50% attendance. However, those two students seem to have approached respondent No.1 and the Registrar has condoned the shortage of attendance on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. Any person in the place of the petitioner would naturally have felt humiliated, when the research scholars working under her got permission to appear without putting the minimum of attendance. Out of sheer agony, the petitioner addressed a letter, dated 29.12.2003. It is necessary to extract the text of the letter, which is a translation from Hindi, to understand the sequence of events. It reads as under. “After taking charge as Professor and Head for P.G.Center D.B.H.B.P. Sabha, Hyderabad, I mentioned it to you that the students attendance is very poor. You asked me to collect Rs.500/- as fine from each student and allow then to write the exam and thus started a wrong tradition. Last semester I met you personally and explained that if we don’t allow them to appear for the final exam, once or twice, the situation may improve. You said “You are the Head of the Department. You only decide”. But when I really took steps to put it in real practice, you allow them all in the last minute to attend the exams. This time, Dr.Narana Raju spoke to me very rashly saying “How to conduct seminars for one or two students as though we do not have any other work”. Hence, I requested you to advise me as to how to tackle the matter by giving it a second thought, while conducting Board of Studies meeting. You entrusted the powers to me saying that it is better, if I only take appropriate decision as Head of the Department. Accordingly I have requested you to not to allow four of the M.Phils and three of the Diploma Students. Though they behaved very indecently with me particularly Neelakant pressurizing me to allow to appear for the final exams, I felt it is not necessary to bring the matter to your knowledge. But when the student had faxed requisition letter directly, you allowed him to appear for the exam and again started a wrong tradition, which will spoil the disciplined atmosphere of the Department. Now the students will think that there is no need to get permission from the head any more. They will not care for the decisions taken by the Head of the Department, which is not acceptable to me. Even then if you are concerned only about the students who are not following the rules thereby insulting me, I prefer to quit the job instead of continuing to work under these circumstances. Hence, I am resigning for the post of Professor and Head P.G. Complex, D.B.H.B.P. Sabha, with effect from 29.12.2003. Kindly accept it and take appropriate action reg.” On the same day, respondent No.1 sent a fax massage, which reads as under: “Received your letter, dated 29.12.2003. As per your request, your resignation is accepted with effect from 29.12.2003. Kindly hand over the charge to Dr.Rishabh Deo Sharma, Reader and get relieved from service.” On 30.12.2003, the petitioner addressed two detailed letters explaining the circumstances that gave rise to the letter, dated 29.12.2003. Respondent No.1 replied stating that he has placed the entire material before Sasi Parishad. The Parishad, in turn, is said to have approved the action. It is not denied that Rule 22 of the Rules provides for three months time either for an employee or for the Sabha itself for termination of services of an employee. The purport thereof is that an employee cannot leave the service of the Sabha abruptly and he must give notice of minimum three months. The purpose underlying the requirement is that the organization should be in a position to make alternative arrangements. So is the case with the requirement for the Sabha to issue three months notice to an employee before he is terminated. This requirement, obviously comes into play, when the termination is otherwise than by way of disciplinary action. However, it is rather astonishing to note the understanding of the Sabha, of this provision. In page 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated as hereunder: “The petitioner is well aware of the provisions in Rule 22 and her contention for issuing three months notice for leaving the service does not arise in this case since she herself tendered her resignation voluntarily for acceptance and it is not a case of terminating her service by way of initiating disciplinary action under the rules. In fact under Rule 22(a) the petitioner has to give three months clear notice for leaving the service but she has categorically chosen to tender her resignation with specific request to accept the same. The provisions under Rule 22 (a) and (b) does not attract her case since it is not the case of terminating the services of the petitioner.” The understanding of the respondents of Rule 22 of the Rules is totally untenable. In fact, it is the other way. The requirement of three months notice does not apply in case the removal or termination is by way of disciplinary action and it applies in all other cases, in particular, of resignation. In S.M.Srikantha Vs. M/s.Bharath Earth Movers Limited[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the connotation of the term ‘resignation’ and underlined its importance to be voluntary in nature. Para 13 of the judgment reads as under: “Now, let us consider the controversy on merits. The term ‘resignation’ has not been defined in the Service Rules. According to dictionary meaning, however, ‘resignation’ means spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right. It is conveyed by Latin maxim Resignatio est juris propii spontanea refutation. (Resignation is a spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right). In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. To relinquish an office means ‘to cease to hold the office’ or ‘to choose hold of the office’ implies to ‘detach’, ‘unfasten’, ‘undo’ or ‘untie’ ‘the binding knot or link’ which hold one to the office and the obligations and privileges that go with it.” In that case, an employee of Bharath Earth Movers Limited was transferred to a Corporate Office at Bangalore and he was not assigned any work. Having got upset, he addressed a letter, dated 04.01.1993, offering to resign. That was accepted by the competent authority instantly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the acceptance of the letter of resignation, dated 04.01.1993, was illegal and accordingly, the letter of acceptance was set aside. It is also important to note that Rule 16 of the Service Rules of Bharath Earth Movers Limited provided for acceptance of a resignation forthwith by paying the salary in lieu of the notice period. On finding that the salary in lieu of one-month notice was not paid, the acceptance was held to be bad. Two factors weigh in favour of the petitioner herein. The first is that there is no provision for instant acceptance of resignation under the Rules of the Sabha and the second is that the petitioner was not paid salary in lieu of the three months notice period, assuming that such a course is permissible. In Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K.Mittal[2], the purport of a Rule, providing for minimum period of notice was examined. It is important to note that there existed a provision of waiver of requirement, whereas, in the instant case, no such provision exists. Even in such cases, it was held that the employer is under obligation to verify whether the letter of resignation is voluntary or submitted out of emotion, or disturbance. In Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Mohinder Pal Singh[3], similar view was taken in case of voluntary retirement scheme. It was held that if an employee, who opted to avail the benefit under V.R.S., changes his mind, the approach should be to protect the interest of the employee than to put a seal of approval on the decision taken instantly. Another important aspect is that a letter of resignation can be accepted normally when it is presented by the employee in person. Unless such precaution is taken, there is every likelihood of procuring the termination of service of an employee, by a person inimically disposed against him, simply by sending a letter of resignation of the said employee. For the acceptance of the letter of resignation, particularly when it is coupled with narration of the agony of the employee giving rise to such a decision, fairness and objectivity demands that the employer must wait and ascertain from the person concerned, as to whether he is serious about the resignation. Many a time, waiting for one or two days would make all the difference. In the present case, if one goes through the text of the letter, dated 29.12.2003, it becomes evident that it was aimed more at impressing upon respondent No.1 to maintain discipline and uphold the Rules. However, the approach of the then Registrar was draconian, and he lost no time in straightaway accepting the resignation, without even verifying the facts mentioned therein. He has proved his meanness, by not even having a word with the petitioner before accepting the resignation. It is but natural that for such a person, academic excellence would be an anathema and he found that the acceptance of the resignation would remove the obstacles in spreading the mediocrity in the Sabha. Whatever may have been the sadistic pleasure derived by the then Registrar in straightaway accepting the resignation giving a goby to the Rules and norms, an organization like Sasi Parishad ought to have bestowed its attention and understood the whole sequence of events in true spirit. It is rather unfortunate that it has proved to be in no way different from its trigger-happy Registrar. The whole episode is in a very bad taste. The result is that the petitioner was put to mental, physical and financial agony and the Sabha was denied the benefit of meritorious Professor for all these years. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only). The action of the respondents in accepting the resignation of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to back wages and all consequential benefits. The respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), within two weeks thereafter, pending finalization and payment of the entire consequential benefits. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.09.2010. Note: (1) Issue cc in one week. (2)The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order immediately to the respondents. (3)The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the petitioner, free of costs. (B/o) kdl [1] 2005 (8) SCC 314 [2] 1990 SCC (L&S) 143 [3] (2004) 2 SCC 193