REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2969 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 29, 2010 Vinod Kumar Seth .....Appellant VERSUS Punjab Financial Corporation, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The suit filed by the appellant, who was employed as Deputy Manager (Legal) with the respondent-Punjab Financial Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”), to plead that resignation submitted by him was not voluntarily and was as a result of coercion and frustration, was dismissed. The appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. He has accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal. The appellant was posted at Sangrur, when he resigned his job w.e.f. 28.5.1998. He had filed this suit, pleading that the higher officers (respondents) were having vindictive attitudes towards REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2969 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: him and gave him step motherly treatment. The appellant had made reference to various instances in the civil suit to plead that he had proceeded on leave on medical ground on proper advice of Orthopedic Surgeon. The respondents, however, disregarded the medical opinion with prejudice mind and directed him to appear before the Medical Board at Chandigarh. As per the appellant, the respondents had no jurisdiction to override the opinion of the competent medical authority and had passed this order just to harass the appellant. Due to frustration and being under depression, the appellant statedly submitted his resignation, which, as such he would term as result of harassment and coercion. In response, the respondents would plead that the appellant had submitted his resignation which was accepted and thereafter he had joined as a Member of the Sangrur Bar Association and was practicing Advocate. It was stated that the resignation was voluntarily submitted without any pressure of any kind. The allegations of harassment etc., as stated are denied. It is also pointed out that the main grievances of the appellant were against Sh.Vasudev Singh under whom he was working at Sangrur but when he submitted his resignation, he was not working under the supervision of said Officer. It was, thus, stated that he had voluntarily left the service in the Corporation to look for greener posture by joining legal profession as a private practitioner. Plea is that when the appellant could not succeed in profession, he had retracted his steps to coin a story that he had submitted this resignation under pressure. The respondents would also point out that the appellant himself had requested for waiving the notice period and had, thus, prayed that he REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2969 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: be relieved by 31.5.1998. He, thus, even did not wait for three months' notice period. This aspect is highlighted to point out that the resignation submitted was not due to any coercion. The submission made by the counsel is that the Managing Director was not competent to accept his resignation. This plea was considered by the first Appellate Court. It was noticed that the resignation was directly submitted to the Managing Director. Reference was then made to the memo addressed to the appellant, which was only a communication and not a decision. The Managing Director is seen to have acted on the letter written by the appellant. Learned counsel could not point out any material to show that the resignation submitted by the appellant was not voluntarily. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this case. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. April 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE