Letters Patent Appeal No.47 OF 2007 ------------- (Arising out of order dated 21.12.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9690 of 2001.) CHANDRADITYA NATH DAS--------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------(Respondents) -------------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr Advocate. M/S Dhananjay Kumar, Sunil Pd. & Manoj Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Ram Bishun Prasad,JC To A.A.G.I. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA. --------------- Mihir Kumar Jha, J. This appeal arises out of an order dated 21.12.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9690 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the writ application of the appellant-writ petitioner came to be dismissed holding that withdrawal of his resignation from service subsequent to the acceptance of his letter of resignation was not permissible either on fact or in law and as such the appellant-writ petitioner was not entitled for the relief as prayed for by him in the writ application. Before this Court would decide the controversy in issue, it would be necessary to notice some of the relevant fact. The writ petitioner originally appointed as Clerk-Cum-Cashier in Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) some time in the year 1978 came to be promoted to the post of Officer in the Bank and on 4.7.2000 he was served with a memo asking him to explain certain 2 allegations with a direction to submit his explanation within a period of three days, as to why disciplinary actions be not initiated against him. The appellant-writ petitioner on 8.7. 2000 had submitted incomplete reply seeking a few months time to submit his detail explanation. On receipt of the said incomplete explanation, the General Manager of the Bank vide letter dated 18.7.2000 had granted him fifteen days time to submit his explanation by enclosing copy of the earlier memo dated 4.7.2000. It appears that petitioner had filed an exhaustive reply to the allegations contained in the said memo on 4.7.2000 and while the same was still under consideration of the Bank, another memo dated 25.9.2000 was issued by the Bank as with regard to a separate allegation and in reply thereof the petitioner filed his letter dated 3.10.2000 in which he had not only denied the allegation but had also made direct allegation against the Chairman of the Bank that he ( Chairman ) seems to be desperate to remove the petitioner from the Bank and as such he was left with no other alternative but either to resign from services of the Bank or to move to higher authorities for redressal of his grievances. It is only after the aforementioned threat of resignation was given by the petitioner, a memo of charge contained in HO/DAW/255/2K-01/115 dated 20.10.2000 was issued against the petitioner by the Bank in purported exercise of power under Regulation 30 of Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Staff) Services Regulation, 1980. Such memo of charge accompanied by Articles of charges would go to show that the 3 petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding for some serious misconduct. The charges against the petitioner, however, having a direct bearing on the result of this appeal and as such the same is needed to be quoted hereinbelow:- ARTICLE OF CHARGES. 1.Despite knowing the fact that Shri Raj Narayan Prasad, the then Branch Manager, Sattar branch was a direct recruitee Officer of the Bank, Shri C.N.Das wrote a letter dated 18.07.85 to Head Office that he will not work under him, only because Shri Prasad had joined the Bank after him. Thus Shri Das deliberately and knowingly had shown disrespect to his senior officer violating Regulation 17 of Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulaions, 1980. 2.Shri C.N.Das while on deputation to Saharsa branch refused in writing vide his letter dated 27.04.95 to discharge the assigned job of Clerk-Cum-Cashier. Branch Manager, Saharsa also alleged that Shri Das was never cordial with the staff members of the branch as well as the customers. It is also alleged that he abused the then Br. Manager, Saharsa on 28.4.95 keeping aside all the sanctity of the office. His undesirable actions compelled the then Area Manager for recommending his transfer to some other place for the sake of peace and restoring working atmosphere in the branch. 3.Shri C.N.Das wrote a letter to Chairman, Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank dtd. 11.12.85 which is quite eratic, irrelevant and meaningless. The brief contents of he letter is mentioned hereunder. a).That Shri Das had written a letter to Branch Manager, RBI, Patna giving reference of order dtd. 4.5.85 of a RBI senior officer and his verbal assurance of appointment to Shri Das in RBI. A copy of letter written to RBI was also enclosed. The enclosed letter dtd. 9.12.85 which was addressed to RBI cannot be accepted and believed to be written by a person of normal mind due to the following:- i).That, Shri Das had gone to join at RBI on 9.12.85 on the verbal assurance of some senior officers of RBI who had allowed him to join at RBI in the Ist week of Aug.1985 but was asked to stay out of RBI for some days. On interrogation this came to surface that he was never given any appointment letter by RBI to join what to speak of allowing 4 him to join in the Ist week of Aug. 1985. His such actions cannot be accepted as an action of man possessing a sound mind. ii).In the above referred letter addressed to the Chairman, he had been found mentioning some very irresponsible thing like “In RBI I was asked how much money was taken by officials to direct him to join RBI.” His above acts are quite undesirable through which he has unnecessarily tried to defame the institution like RBI. 4.Shri C.N.Das vide his letter dtd. NIL (but mentioning that it is being sent vide Registry No. 4197 dtd. 19.9.85) addressed to RBI, Patna complained against his Br. Manager (Sattar branch) that the Branch Manager was torturing him and he might be compelled to resign. He also alleged that his life was in danger. This caused unnecessary tension at H.O. level as well as a RBI and NABARD level, as the whole matter was to be examined thoroughly. Branch Manager, Sattar vide letter no. Ho/04/85/11 dtd. 11.9.85 had lodged a serious complaint against Shri Das on following points. a).Uncalled for argument with the B.M. causing unnecessary tension and disrupting work of the branch. b).Behaving in indecent manner with the B.M. c).Shri Das in his letter no. Ho/04/85/77 dtd.19.7.85 informed H.O.that he will not work under any officer who joined after 25.7.1981. d).Branch Manager also alleged that no Statement/Report-returns is prepared by Shri Das. Balancing work was also reportedly not done by Shri Das. e).The relationship of Shri Das with the local residents was also not cordial which affected the development of the Bank adversely. Branch Manager was so fed-up with his behaviour that he requested the Management for the transfer of Shri Das. 5.A very serious complaint was made by the then Branch Manager, Baruari Branch vide his letter no. BR/06/86/75 dtd. 9.7.86 mentioning the following: Shri Das on 8.7.86 after reaching branch started discussing the farewell ceremony of the then Chairman Shri D.V.K.Sharma. When the B.M. told him that “Das Babu, Aap ko bhai jana chahiye tha”, Shri Das started shouting and abusing Shri D.V.K.Sharma in a very filthy language. Despite efforts to pacify him by the B.M. he continued to behave erratically in the presence of Branch customers. He also abused the MSW only because the MSW had given him a file by left hand. When the 5 B.M. tried to get him cooled he started abusing him too in a very filthy language. The above acts of Shri Das shows that Shri Das has no respect for either his subordinates or his high-ups which is an act punishable under Staff Service Regulations, 1980. Further, B.M.-Baruari through this letter no. BR/6/86/33 dtd.21.3.86 has lodged very serious complaint against Shri Das mentioning the following:- On 3.1.86 while making transaction at the counter Shri Das made some mistakes and paid Rs.100/- ( Rupees one hundred only) excess to one of the customers, and after detection started shouting abnormally alleging a theft to cover-up his mistake. However after 10 days, the customer who had received excess cash (Rs.100/-) came to branch and return the cash. The delay in getting the cash returned was his illness as stated by the customer. The money so received was credited to Sundry A/C which was withdrawn by Shri Das without obtaining permission from the B.M. 6.Shri C.N.Das made a complaint vide letter dtd. 15.5.87 alleging Area Office Officials demanding tea and snacks. Subsequently he withdrew his complaint but the Bank was thrown into a hectic and expensive exercise of getting the matter thoroughly investigation which ultimately went futile after withdrawn of the complaint. Branch Manager, Saharsa also lodged a serious complaint vide letter no. HO/MPR/06/88/120 dtd.2.7.88 regarding his abnormal behaviour with the customers damaging the interest and image of the Bank quite adversely. Charges of disobedience was also leveled against Shri Das by the Br. Manager. 7.Shri C.N.Das vide his letter dtd. 11.6.88 alleged Smt. Bibha Das (identity not disclosed but she happens to be the wife of Shri Das) was indulged in making some sort of conspiracy against him in connivance with one Shri Ram Narain Prasad and some other persons which compelled him to resign from Bank’s service. However Shri Das later on withdrew his resignation vide his letter dtd. 13.6.88 mentioning that his wife had given an undertaking that she will keep her behaviour balanced and also she will not claim any amount from the salary of Shri Das. The above acts of Shri Das once again underlines his most irresponsible and erratic behaviour with non other than his wife. This act on the part of Shri Das also disturbed the bank’s working atmosphere adversely. 6 8.Shri C.N. Das sent a telegram to Chairman, Central Bank of India alleging that the then Chairman Shri R.N. Bodhanler wanted to attach his salary in connivance with Mrs. Sunita Sinha, “a worst character lady who happens to be the Officer of the Bank.” Bank record shows that no such attempt on the part of the then Chairman was made for attaching the salary of Shri Das. For his such derogatory remark against the officer of the Bank and for sending a highly objectionable te,egram to outside higher authority, an explanation vide letter no. HO/PRS/e/C-02/88/M-5424 dtd. 20.12.88 was asked from Shri Das which Shri Das received on 20.12.99. Thus Shri Das very wrongfully dragged the name of the then Chairman in his own family affairs and also made a very cheap and derogatory remarks against a lady officer by saying her “Worst Character lady”. This act of Shri Das is a major misconduct and punishable under Staff Service Regulations, 1980. 9.Shri C.N.Das wrote a letter dtd. 14.2.89 to Finance Minister Govt. of India alleging the management for not granting him promotion in 1981, 1983 and 1989 violating clause 31, 32, 33 & 34 of Staff Service Regulations, 1980. Instead of making an appeal for any grievance before the Board of Directors, Shri Das unnecessarily involved Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India which is not a competent forum for redressal of grievance. 10.Shri C.N.Das vide letter no. HO/PRS/2/89/1252 dtd. 14.3.89 was asked an explanation on account of different omission & commission while working in Despatch section at Head office. His reply to the above explanation was quite irrelevant and unacceptable. 11. Shri C.N.Das while working at Mahishi branch made a complaint to zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna alleging that MSW does not clean office, another Field Supervisor does not talk gently with Shri Das, C/C torn DTB leaf and blamed Shri Das and finally the B.M. did not care to take action against them. He further alleged in the letter even against Chairman that he had sent regd. Letter and telegram to him but the same was not taken seriously by the Chairman and also that Chairman was having a deaf ear etc. His such act making unwanted complaint against the co-staff members as well as the Chairman is an act of gross indiscipline punishable under Staff Service Regulations, 1980 and violation of circular no. 25/89 dtd. 20.4.89. 7 12.It is also observed from the record that Br. Manager, Paharpur vide his letter no. HO/11/92-93/22 dtd. 30.05.92 informed the then Chairman regarding the callous attitude of Shri Das towards Bank’s work and also his habits of alleging the high- ups of the institution. 13.Shri C.N.Das wrote a letter dtd. 19.5.92 through B.M.Paharpur mentioning some quite irrelevant points in the following manner. He had started the letter with a desire of transfer and erratically mentioned that Chairman had verbally ordered to give representation. The only point in his above letter relates to his so-called discussion with the then Chairman dtd. 13.05.92 in his official chamber. This is also an example of his erratic behaviour and irrelevant correspondence. 14.It is also observed that Shri Das put a question mark before the authority of the Branch Manager who on some occasion marked his absent and stopped his salary by making complaint dtd. 28.4.92 to the Chairman. 15. It is also observed from his letter dtd. 13.06.93 addressed to Chairman making very derogatory remarks against the Br. Manager, Paharpur Shri P.C. Prasad in the following way. He further alleged in his letter dtd. 13.6.93 that Branch Manager had ordered him verbally to pay Rs. 1000/- to one Shri Md. Manjar Alam without obtaining withdrawals, which however was found baseless afterwards. Making a baseless complaint and passing such a derogatory remarks against the Superior Officer is a major misconduct on the part of Shri Das which is punishable under Staff Service Regulations, 1980. The allegation that Shri Das paid Rs. 1000/- to Md. Manjar Alam without taking any withdrawal by the order of the B.M. Shri P.C. Prasad is sufficient example of his habit of making unfounded allegations upon the co-workers. It is also observed from the record that while posted at Paharpur Shri Das was “CAUTIONED” for not behaving nicely with the customers vide letter no. Pra.ka./Aa.Sa./Cee./117/92- 93/1052dtd.20.02.93. 16.Shri Das lodged a complaint to the Governor, RBI, Mumbai endorsing a copy to the Manager, RBI, Patna alleging Br. Manager and Officer, Saharsa as “ PATHBHARAST AWAM BHARST PADADHIKARI HAI”. He also alleged that the Br. Manager was indulged in casteism. This complaint was forwarded to the Bank vide their letter no. RPCD/CRRP/32112/134/99-2000 dtd. 8 26.07.99 for investigation. However on investigation of the said complaint, it was observed that the allegations were quite baseless. 17. Shri Das while deputed to our Rajanpur branch sent a fax message on 28.9.2000 stating therein that while verifying cash into the safe, he observed a shadow of a hand entering the safe which prevented him verifying the cash into the safe. The above observation made by Shri Das may not be termed as an observation of a person of sound health and mind. From the above mentioned facts, it is evident that Shri C.N.Das, Officer, Saharsa branch have been committing a series of misconducts which is highly detrimental to the interest and image of the Bank and constitutes gross misconduct punishable under Regulation 30 (1) of Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulaions, 1980. Sd/- (D.K.Paul) DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. After service of the aforesaid charge on 20.10.2000 the petitioner is/was said to have sent a letter dated 23rd November, 2000, which is claimed to be a letter of resignation of the petitioner and reads as follows:- To, the Chairman, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head office,Purnea at + P.O+ Dist:- Purnea (Bihar) India. Sub: Your Memo No. HO/XHW/255/27-01/11 (115) Dated 20.10.2000 is replied through the Reply letter. Sir, You please find my answer here that in the year 1998, I was served a letter that from 31 March 1998. My resignation will be accepted by you where previously this resignation was rejected by the exchairman. I was told that I was not found my (I will not found my) amount of provident fund, Gratuity, Group Insurance and pension scheme perfectly. Then I reported honorable Finance Secretary Central Government of India New Delhi in March 1998. After some time you have declare that I have not accepted said Resignation at all you also again took my another representation that said resignation should be rejected also and I will not put any Resignation in future. My 9 said resignation was rejected by you and honorable member of the Board of directors and that was confirmed also. But Shree D.K.Paul New Chairman Planned and created several causes which already disappointed by me and Chairman. You made a plan that you will not pay me my amount of P.F. Gratuity, Group Insurance and pension scheme and additional salaries of 60 (Sixty) months which is authorize by Central Government of India New Delhi India. I am weak and poor employ of this Bank. I am not able to go to court for this. So therefore you are competent to accept my said resignation with effect from January 2001 or remove my service from January 2001. With best regards. Saharsa Yours Faithfully 23 November Chandraditya Nath Das 2000 Officer Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Branch Saharsa P.O.+P.S-Saharsa District- Saharsa (Bihar) India. It is in pursuance of the said letter of the petitioner dated 23rd November, 2000 that the impugned order came to be passed on 24.11.2000, i.e, next day communicating the petitioner that his resignation have been accepted w.e.f. 1.12.2000 and such acceptance of resignation being relevant for the purposes of this appeal is quoted hereinbelow:- To, Shri C.N.Das, Officer, Saharsa Branch. Reg: Your Resignation dtd.23.1.2000 Dear Sir, We have gone through the above resignation letter and have also examined it thoroughly. We accept your resignation w.e.f. 01.12.2000. We are instructing our all offices accordingly. Sd/- ( D.K.Pal) CHAIRMAN Copy to: 1.Saharsa Branch. 2.Area Office, Saharsa. 3.All Deptt. In H.O. 10 The appellant-writ petitioner after receipt of the said order of the Bank dated 24.11.2000 had however immediately sent his letter dated 30th November, 2000 by registered post wherein he had made a request that his letter dated 23.11.2000 was not a voluntary letter of resignation rather it was only submitted for getting the memo of charge withdrawn and as such his services should not be dispensed with from the Bank. As this representation has also a vital bearing on this case, the content thereof needs to be quoted in extenso which reads as follows : - lsok esa] v?;{k egksn;A dks’kh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] iz/kku dk;kZy;] iwf.kZ;kaA fo”k; & vH;kosnuA egk’k;] vkids i=kad HO/PRS/2K-01/2297 fnukad 24-11-2K ds dze esa fuosnu gS fd esjk vfHkizk; foxr R;kxi= dks Lohd`r djus ls ugha FkkA rFkk cSad ls esjh lsok lekIr djus ;k djokus ls Hkh ugha FkkA vkjksiksa ,oa izR;kjksiksa ds fujFkZd ,oa dywf"kr tkyksa dks lekIr djokuk esjk mn~ns'; FkkA vr,o fuosnu gS fd iz/kku dk;kZy; ds i=kad HO/PRS/2K-01/2297 fnukad 24-11-2K dks vfoyEc fujLr djus dh d`ik dh tk; rFkk lsok foeqfDr ds bl vkns'k dks Hkh fujLr djus dh d`ik dh tk;A rkfd cSad esa eSa viuh lsok ds dze esa cSad ds dk;ksZa dk fu"iknu fuokZ/k ,oa fujUrjrk ds dze esa Rofjr ,oa nRrfpr jgqWA cSad esa esjh lsok Hkax ugha djus dh d`ik dh tk;A eSa bl dze esa dguk gS fd eq>s vkfFkZd {kfr ;k vkfFkZd gkfu dk lkeuk ugha djuk iM+sA eSa blds fy, Jheku ds izfr loZnk vkHkkjh jgqWxkkA fo'oklHkktu Sd/- Chandraditya Nath Das 30 Nov. 2000 vf/kdkjh dks'kh z{ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad 'kk[kk lgjlk ftyk lgjlkA The said representation dated 30th November, 2000 followed by series of further representations dated 26.12.2000 and 28.2.2001, did not evoke any response from the Bank save and except that the Chairman of the Bank on 9.3.2001 had constituted a three man committee to examine the erratic 11 behaviour of the appellate-writ petitioner on the ground that he appeared to be a man of unsound mind, The appellant-writ petitioner and his wife sensing trouble had immediately reached to Ranchi Mental Hospital and remained under observation of Dr. A.K. Gupta psychiatrist who had initially given a certificate on 9.3.2001 and again on 14.4.2001 had declared the appellate-writ petitioner to be mentally, healthy and a fit person to discharge his duty. It however appears that the three man committed consisting the official of the Bank in its report had observed that the appellant-writ petitioner was not in a sound mental condition to discharge his normal duty and as such recommended for soliciting opinion of medical expert/psychiatrist. Infact the letter of the Bank dated 26.3.2001 addressed to the wife of the appellant-writ petitioner (Annexure-10) would itself go to indicate that the Bank wanted the appellant-writ petitioner to be examined by the medical expert for ascertaining his menal condition so that there could be no further difficulties in releasing his terminal benefits pursuant to acceptance of his resignation. The records annexed with the writ application would bear out that wife of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner had filed an application dated 30.3.2001 and 2.5.2001 enclosing certificate of Dr. A.K. Gupta, Psychiatrist of Ranchi Mental Hospital dated 9.3.2001 and 14.4.2001 respectively that appellant-writ petitioner was having no mental problem and in fact after being 12 kept in observation, the doctor at Ranchi Mental Hospital had reported that the appellant-writ petitioner was diagnosed as a case of acute Psychotic episode and having been cured he was fit to rejoin his duties. It, however, appears that even thereafter the authorities of the Bank did not respond to the repeated representation filed by the appellant-writ petitioner and his wife. The authorities of the Bank vide letter dated 2.6.2001 infact only directed the writ petitioner to appear before the medical Board constituted under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon of Purnea. Pursuant to the said order of the Bank dated 2.6.2001 the appellant-writ petitioner was examined by the medical Board consisting five government doctors of Purnea district headed by Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer and the said medical Board after getting the appellant-writ petitioner admitted in Sadar Hospital Purnea and keeping him under joint observation for a period of five days, i.e, from 9.6.2001 to 13.6.2001 had submitted its report dated 13.6.2001 (Annexure-17), wherein the appellant-writ petitioner was found to be well oriented in time, place and person and no abnormality of any nature whatsoever was observed during his stay at the hospital. The medical Board accordingly concluded that the appellant-writ petitioner was mentally fit. It appears that pursuant to receipt of report of the said medical Board, when the appellant-writ petitioner had filed another series of representations for allowing him to resume his duty by recalling the order of acceptance of resignation dated 24. 11.2000, the whole matter was placed 13 before the Board of Director of the Bank in its meeting held on 15.7.2001, but the Board of Director treated the case of the appellant-writ petitioner to be one of resignation and as such left the matter to be decided by the Chairman in respect of future course of action for the appellant-writ petitioner. The appellant-writ petitioner under such situation having got no relief from the authorities of the Bank had filed the writ application on 27.7.2001 wherein prayer was made that the Bank‟s order dated 24.11.2000 accepting resignation of the appellant-writ petitioner as also the consequential order dated 4.7.2001 seeking to adjust his payable terminal benefit as against the outstanding loan taken by him asking him to pay the balance amount be quashed with a consequential order for reinstatement in service were made. The Bank and its officials had filed a counter affidavit in which it was sought to be explained that letter of the petitioner dated 23.11.2000 was a letter of his resignation and though Regulation 10 of the Services Regulation of the Bank had required a notice of three months for acceptance of such