Supreme Court of India
RA VINDER SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. on 6 March 1995
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
RA VINDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
A
MARCH 6, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Service Law-Resignation submitted under threat-Withdrawal-Accep- · tance quqshed and reinstatement directed.
The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was alleged to C have made delay in despatching some communication and also failed to keep a copy of leave application of Superintendent of Police on record. As he was given threat and warning ht tendered his resignation on 3.1.91. However, he withdrew his resignation on 2.2.91 but the resi~ation was accepted on the same day.
D
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : It is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue· in service. The acceptance of resignation stands quashed and he should be reinstated into service forthwith but without back wages. (520-D]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4027 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.92 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal in OA No. 2698 ~mL
Surya Kant for the Appellant.
F
Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted.
G
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances, it would appear that it is a case warranting our interference. It is seen that the appellant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the H
[1995} 2 S.C.R.
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A office of Superintendent of Police. On two occasions there was delay in dispatch of some communication. According to the explanation offered by the appellant, the Head Clerk was responsible for the delay for dispatch. It was on the third occasion that he did riot keep office copy of the leave application for earned.leave of the Superintendent of Police. In fact it is not the duty of the dispatch clerk but office/Head Clerk to keep the office B copy for record. These three facts were taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police and by giving insinuating threats or warning to the appellant, a sense of insecurity in continuance of employment was created. Obviously to get over the situation, he might have tendered resignation on January 3, 1991 but he had withdrawn it on February 2, 1991, C before the acceptance was communicated to him. On the same day the resignation was accepted.
Under these circumstances, we thillk that it is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue in service. The.appeal is accordingly allowed. The acceptance of resignation dated February 2, 1991 stands quashed and D there shall be a direction to reinstate the appellant into service forthwith but without back wages ..
·Appeals allowed.
'
;>---- .