IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4406 of 2002 Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 State of Punjab and others .... Appellants vs. Vinod Guliani .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The State of Punjab challenges the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2001, passed by District Judge, Chandigarh accepting the appeal filed by the respondent and as a result decreeing his suit. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that order dated 9.04.1991 accepting his resignation w.e.f. 19.04.1984 is illegal, null and void. On facts the respondent alleged that he submitted a letter of resignation, effective from 1st July, 1984. However, as no order was passed thereon, he withdrew his resignation on 19th February, 1985. Despite withdrawal of the resignation, he was not allowed to join duty and therefore, served a legal notice calling upon the appellants to allow him to perform his duties. All of a sudden, on 9.04.1991, an order was passed accepting his resignation w.e.f. 19.04.1984. The appellants opposed the prayer in suit by asserting that after submitting his resignation, the respondent had abandoned his services and as he did not make a request for withdrawal, within the notice period, the resignation was rightly accepted. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the RSA No.4406 of 2002 -2- following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether no cause of action has accrued? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 5. Whether no notice u/s 80 CPC has been served upon defendants? OPD. 6. Relief. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, by counsel for the parties,the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that as the resignation was not withdrawn within the notice period, the respondent was not entitled to any relief. It was also held that the suit was barred by time. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the respondent filed an appeal. The District Judge, Chandigarh accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit by holding that as the resignation was withdrawn well before it was considered and accepted, the order accepting the resignation was illegal and void. Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent should have withdrawn the resignation within the notice period i.e., up to July, 1984. As the request for withdrawal was received after expiry of the notice period, its subsequent withdrawal seven months thereafter, is irrelevant. It is further argued that after 1984, the respondent did not report for duty and in essence abandoned his service. The respondent, therefore, cannot be heard to urge that by acceptance of the letter of resignation on 5th April, 1991, a fresh cause of action accrued. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is a settled position in law that for a resignation to come into effect it has to be preceded by an order of acceptance and till such time as the request for resignation is not accepted or rejected an employee may withdraw his RSA No.4406 of 2002 -3- resignation. It is submitted that the resignation dated 19.04.1984 was withdrawn on 19.02.1985, whereas it was acepted on 5.04.1991 five years thereafter. The respondent's wife Smt. Neeru Guliani, an employee of the appellant-department submitted a similar request for resignation followed by a similar request for withdrawal. In her case also, the resignation was accepted three years after the letter of resignation and two and half years after its withdrawal. Smt. Neeru Guliani filed a suit challenging the acceptance of her resignation. In her case the trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The State of Punjab filed Regular Second Appeal No.2093 of 2003 which was dismissed on 26th February, 2003. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab was also dismissed. It is therefore, argued that in view of the facts referred to hereinabove, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court. As noticed in the narrative of the facts, the appellant submitted his resignation on 19th April, 1984. The resignation was to come into effect on 1st July, 1984. Admittedly, the letter of resignation was not considered by the appellants and remained pending. On 19.02.1985, the respondent withdrew his resignation. The withdrawal of the resignation did not elicit any response from the appellants who continued to sleep over the matter. The respondent thereafter began serving notices calling upon the appellants to allow him to join duty. It appears that these notices jolted the appellants from their slumber and in an apparent attempt to conceal their culpable negligence passed an order dated 5.04.1991, accepting the resignation w.e.f. 19.04.1984. The relevant dates referred to hereinabove, make it crystal clear that on 5th February, 1991, the request for resignation was no longer pending. The appellants, therefore, accepted an empty, RSA No.4406 of 2002 -4- meaningless piece of paper that had ceased to exist. The first appellate, therefore, did not commit any error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreeing the suit filed by the respondent. It would also be necessary to mention here that the respondent's wife Smt. Neeru Guliani, an employee with the appellant-department submitted a similar resignation. In her case also the appellants kept the matter pending for more than three years. The suit filed by her challenging the acceptance of letter of resignation was decreed, the first appeal and second appeal were dismissed as also the Special Leave Petition. She is admittedly working with the appellants. The case as set out by the respondent in the present case is in no manner different from the case of Smt. Neeru Guliani. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellants that the application for withdrawal was not submitted within the notice period and as the respondent has not performed his duties, is meaningless and does not merit acceptance. A letter of resignation, its acceptance or rejection are positive acts to be performed by departmental officers. Their failure to accept the resignation for more than seven years is surprising and borders on culpable negligence. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. However, as accepted by the counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent, he would not claim any back wages. His period of absence would, however, count towards computing the length of service for the purpose of pension etc. No costs. 10.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge