THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ED), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION v. GANESHWAR ROY @ GUNESHWAR ROY

I confirm that I do not have any job outside India either long term or short term or half yearly. As I am having long Inspection Experience of 12 years of hard work and consequently I assure that I shall not issue 4 any wrong recommendation. With due honor I again pray you to kindly take merciful view and to please accord approval for cancellation of my resignation letter dated 25.10.2008. I request your honor once again to kindly pardon me and to please allow me to serve this great organization. For this act of kindness, I shall be ever grateful to you.” It is the case of the writ petitioner that since he had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance, his resignation had no effect at all. That was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge held as follows:- “As a result of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that petitioner had withdrawn his offer of resignation before his jural relationship as an employee come to an end and in such a situation the respondent authorities committed error of law in giving effect to petitioner’s offer of resignation which was already withdrawn. Hence, the acceptance of petitioner’s resignation by the respondent authorities and cessation of his employment on that account are found to be illegal. The impugned order accepting the 5 resignation of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. As a result, the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits.” The contention of the appellants is that even though acceptance of the resignation was communicated on 3.11.2008 but it was already accepted on 29.10.2008 itself. To prove the above contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied on Annexure-A, the letter attached to the counter affidavit, showing that the resignation letter addressed by the petitioner to the Corporation wherein the Executive Director had made an endorsement – “Pl process”. The words “Pl process” are indicative the resignation is accepted principle. In fact, even according to the Annexures attached to the Memorandum of Appeal, it can be seen the writ petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings at that time. The enquiry was concluded. At that time, his resignation was given. The words “Pl process” may indicate that the Office may make a noting whether resignation can be accepted or whether the disciplinary proceedings can be continued. Question of 6 settling the dues also has to be considered. Even on the letter dated 3.11.2008 it is not stated that prior to

3.11.2008, resignation of the petitioner from the services the Corporation was accepted and it was communicated to him only on 3.11.2008. The letter dated 1.11.2008 was accepted by the Corporation. There is no dispute in it. Even prior to the letter dated

1.11.2008 the resignation was accepted on previous date, it would have been mentioned in the letter dated

3.11.2008, but that is also not mentioned. Therefore, the contention that the resignation letter was accepted in principle on 29.11.2008 cannot be accepted. The resignation letter has to be accepted or rejected. There is no dispute that it has been accepted in principle. It is true that in North Zone Cultural Centre & Anr. Vrs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2003 (3) Supreme 532, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after acceptance of resignation, some delay communication, that will not affect the process of resignation. Here by letter dated 1.11.2008, petitioner 7 withdrew his resignation. Till that date, resignation letter was not accepted. Even till letter dated 3.11.2008, the Corporation did not say that his resignation was accepted before the letter dated 1.11.2008 was received by it. There is no reason or evidence to show that it has been accepted on principle before 1.11.2008. The endorsement on the resignation letter `Pl process’ is not acceptance of resignation. Resignation was accepted on

3.11.2008 after it was withdrawn. No valid grounds are mentioned to take a different view on the finding of facts entertained by the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal. In the above circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. ( J.B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )