SCA/568819/1987 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5688 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================= ================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= ================ PATE BIPINKUMAR BHAILALBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA TO BE SERVED THRO'THE DIRECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================= ================ Appearance : MR BHUSHAN B OZA for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MS BHAVINI SHUKLA for MS V.D. NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================= ================ CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution SCA/568819/1987 2/3 JUDGMENT of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent – authorities to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the petition are as under; 2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk by the respondents at the Malaria Research Centre, Nadiad vide order dated 12.01.1987. On 03.04.1987 the petitioner was served with a notice by respondent no.3 informing him that he was found incompetent in typing work and in maintaining the office records. It was also informed in the said notice dated 03.04.1987 that the same shall be treated as a warning for the future. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on 09.04.1987 the petitioner was forced to tender his resignation by the respondent no.3 – authority. Thereafter, the petitioner made several attempts to resume his duties with the respondent no.3 unsuccessfully. The petitioner had also filed a criminal complaint against one of the officials of the respondent – Institute. However, all his attempts yielded no fruitful results. The petitioner had also preferred proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. However, the same was not entertained on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Hence, this petition. SCA/568819/1987 3/3 JUDGMENT 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Looking to the evidence on record, more particularly, the averments made in the reply filed by respondent no.3, it appears that the petitioner had voluntarily left the services of respondent no.3. There does not appear to be coercion of any nature or kind from the respondents, which might have compelled the petitioner to tender his resignation at the relevant point of time. In my opinion, the issue regarding tendering of the resignation by the petitioner at the relevant point of time appears to be taken purely in a sound state of mind and without any force or coercion. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere in this petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*