WP/22996/2006 of Sri R.V. Umamaheswara Rao, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

It is the case of the case of the petitioner that initially he wasappointed as Deputy Engineer in the year 1985 in the respondentCompany and thereafter promoted as Deputy General Manager andrendered unblemished service to the utmost satisfaction of one andall. While so, on 7.5.2006, his mother fell sick and Doctors advisedhim to make somebody for assistance. In view of attachment, love andaffection towards his mother, petitioner submitted his resignationthrough letter dated 8.5.2006 to serve his mother. Due to his personaldedicated service and nursing, petitioner’s mother recovered quicklyfrom ill health. Therefore, petitioner decided to withdrew hisresignation letter dated 8.5.2006 and accordingly, made arepresentation on 1.9.2006 requesting the respondents to permit him tojoin duty. However, all of a sudden, respondents, sent impugned letterdated 18.10.2006 to the petitioner enclosing cheque bearingNo.349182 dated 23.9.2006 for Rs.3,74,539/-, towards final settlement,without making any reference as to withdrawal letter sent by the petitioner on 1.9.2006. According to the petitioner, his resignationletter dated 8.5.2006 was not accepted and he had already withdrawnresignation letter on 1.9.2006 before it was accepted on 18.10.2006. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal.

On behalf of respondents, a detailed counter affidavit has beenfiled denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that thepetitioner while working as Deputy General Manager (Plant andServices/Engg. Services) submitted his resignation letter dated8.5.2006 for the said post due to personal and domestic reasons andrequested to relieve him with effect from 15.5.2006. Petitioner,thereafter stopped attending to duties from the next day i.e. 9.5.2006. The resignation submitted by petitioner is voluntary at his own will andaccord. In the resignation letter, he has mentioned that he has to leaveHyderabad to go to his native place and requested to relieve him fromduties with effect from 15.5.2006. As per procedure, the respondents

have obtained the approval of competent authority and the same wascommunicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.6.2006 stating thathis resignation was accepted and he was relieved from services of thecompany as requested by him. Petitioner was also advised to contactthe finance division for settlement of his accounts. Thereafter,petitioner account was settled and a cheque bearing No.349182 dated23.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.3,74,539/- was sent along with his finalstatement of accounts through letter dated 18.10.2006. The finalisationof petitioner’s account was taken considerable time as it requires toobtain no due certificate from various Departments and after obtainingthe same, petitioner’s account was finalized. In the meanwhile,management received petitioner’s representation dated 1.9.2006 on5.9.2006 withdrawing the resignation submitted by him through hisletter dated 8.5.2006. Petitioner also contacted over phone about therepresentation submitted by him and he was informed that hisresignation was accepted and he was already relieved from duties,therefore, it is not possible to consider his request. In spite of thesame, petitioner returned the cheque bearing No.349182 dated23.9.2006 for Rs.3,74,539/- through his letter dated 2.11.2006 statingthat his representation dated 1.9.2006 was pending though he wasinformed that his request was rejected. Petitioner was informed onceagain through letter dated 13.11.2006 that the management acceptedhis resignation and he was relieved from the services of company witheffect from 15.5.2006 as requested by him and his request forwithdrawal of resignation was not accepted and in view of the same,the returned cheque was once again forwarded to the petitionerthrough letter dated 13.11.2006. Petitioner suppressed the said fact ofacceptance of his resignation and that he was relieved from theservices of the company, with effect from 15.5.2006, as requested byhim through letter dated 12.6.2006. Thus, the petitioner has notapproached this Court with true facts and therefore, he is not entitled toany relief as sought for. As per the office order No.HO/789/001 dated14.6.1977, an employee once tenders his resignation cannot on hisown accord withdraw the same and the withdrawal would requirespecific permission from the management. The non-acceptance ofwithdrawal of resignation by the management is neither illegal nor violative of any rights of the petitioner.

Heard both sides and perused the material made available onrecord.

The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended thatthough the resignation was submitted by the petitioner on 8.5.2006 tobe accepted with effect from 15.5.2006, that was never acted upon andthe petitioner sent withdrawal letter on 1.9.2006. Instead of actingupon that, respondents, all of a sudden, sent impugned letter dated18.10.2006 to the petitioner enclosing cheque bearing No.349182dated 23.9.2006 for Rs.3,74,539/- towards final settlement of hisaccount. In the said letter, respondents never indicated that theresignation of the petitioner was accepted on 12.6.2006 andcommunicated the same to him. Therefore, the contention of therespondents that they have accepted the resignation of the petitionerand the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated12.6.2006 is false and incorrect. Petitioner did not receive any suchcommunication dated 12.6.2006. Therefore, it must be deemed thatthe resignation letter of the petitioner dated 8.5.2006 was never giveneffect to.

The learned counsel for respondents reiterated the stand takenin the counter and asserted that the resignation letter of the petitionerdated 8.5.2006 was accepted and the same was informed to himthrough letter dated 12.6.2006 stating that his resignation wasaccepted and he was relieved from the services of company with effectfrom 15.5.2006.

The fact remains that there was no assertion made by therespondents that the purported letter dated 12.6.2006, which isdisputed by the petitioner, was communicated to him. In this regard,however, the learned counsel for respondents placed records beforethe Court stating that it was communicated. A bare look at the recordswould indicate that a note was placed before the General Managerand the General Manager expressed a doubt as to whether thepetitioner was relieved from duties with effect from 15.5.2006 or not. Inthis regard, after making discussions, it was found that the petitionerwas not relieved as on 10.6.2006. Therefore, the contention of therespondents that the petitioner was relieved from duties with effect

Conclusion

from 15.5.2006 cannot be said to be true. Further, the letter dated12.6.2006 states that as the resignation letter of the petitioner is dated8.5.2006 requesting to relieve him with effect from 15.5.2006, hestands relieved from the services of the company with effect from15.5.2006. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the letterdated 12.6.2006 was communicated to the petitioner either byregistered post with acknowledgement due or otherwise. The learnedcounsel for respondents however, placed before the Court the dispatchregister stating that the letter dated 12.6.2006 was dispatched to thepetitioner. Less said the better insofar as maintaining dispatch registeris concerned. The dispatch register does not show that any such letterdated 12.6.2006 was sent to the petitioner. This itself would show thatabsolutely there is no evidence to show that purported letter dated12.6.2006 has been sent to the petitioner. The respondents have takeninconsistent stand contrary to their own records as to relieving ofpetitioner with effect from 15.5.2006. In fact, the endorsement ofGeneral Manager shows that the petitioner was not relieved as on10.6.2006. Therefore, I am of the view that any amount of suspicionshrouds around the letter dated 12.6.2006 purported to relieve thepetitioner from service on 15.5.2006 by accepting his resignation letterdated 8.5.2006. Therefore, it can be said that the said letter dated12.6.2006 was never communicated to the petitioner. Once thepetitioner withdrew his resignation on 1.9.2006, which was received bythe respondents on 5.9.2006, it must be deemed that the petitionerwithdrawn his resignation letter dated 8.5.2006 before passing theimpugned order dated 18.10.2006. So long as resignation letter wasnot accepted or it was not given effect to, petitioner is entitled towithdraw the resignation tendered by him. Therefore, the impugnedorder is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the respondents are directed to reinstate thepetitioner into service forthwith. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, petitioner is not entitled for any wages forthe period he was out of service applying the theory of ‘no work nopay’. However, petitioner is entitled for continuity of service for thepurpose of seniority, promotion and for other attendant benefits.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________

Date: .12.2007DA

C.V.RAMULU,J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

.12.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

W.P.No.22996 of 2006

Date: December, 2007

Between:R.V.Umamaheswara Rao

.. Petitioner

And

The Chairman and Managing Director,BEL (Bharat Electronics Limited),Bangalore & others... Respondents