IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28916 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.G. VINOD BABU, VINOD VIHAR, KUMBALAM, KOCHI 682 506. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SMT.REENA.C.STEPHENSON SMT.M.A.RAMITHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL(DAIRY) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. THE MANAING DIRECTOR, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, ALAPPUZHA UNIT. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 14.10.2008. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.), SC, MILMA FOR R2 & 3 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R2 & 3 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R1 & ADDL. R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.28916/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 29.7.08 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 7.8.08. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 28.8.08 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 6.9.08 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERALA CO-OP. MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. DT. 16.6.08. P6:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 214TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.7.08 ISSUED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. R2(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.8.08 ISSUED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28916 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has submitted his resignation from the service of the 2nd respondent with effect from 31/08/2008. His complaint is that the resignation letter is not being acted upon. While any decision to accept a resignation or refuse to do so is well within the wisdom of the establishment, particularly the competent authority, that has to be only on the basis of certain and sustainable reasons. This is because, the provisions regulating the conditions of service provide for resignation. While the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 2nd and 3rd respondents to relieve him from service and to take a decision on resolution No.1764 dated 14/08/2008, the 2nd respondent attributes their inability to do so, fundamentally on the basis of Ext.R2 (a) communication from the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Alappuzha Unit, touching certain transactions in the establishment of the 2nd respondent. While the petitioner WP(C) No.28916/2008 -2- has a reply affidavit, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Alappuzha Unit has filed an affidavit disclosing the stage of the enquiry. From that, it is obvious that the enquiry is, apparently, in the initial stage and no crime has been registered. There is no investigation at all, as known to law. Obviously therefore, the pendency of that enquiry cannot be considered as a ground to refuse to act on the resignation letter. Hence, this writ petition is ordered directing that the respondents 2 & 3 shall take a decision on resolution No.1764 dated 14/08/2008 and issue its decision on the resignation of the petitioner as contained in the letter of resignation issued by him to the 2nd respondent. This shall be done within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg