The Tripura High Court directed the petitioner to pay the principal amount mentioned in the bond together with the interest and held that the study leave was sanctioned by the Government in favor of the petitioner with the legitimate expectation that valuable public interest would be sub-served by way of increasing the efficiency of the medical officers like the petitioner and the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner cannot be treated as a resignation before its acceptance by the concerned authority and unless and until the terms and conditions laid down in the bond are fulfilled.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, working as a Junior Medical Officer received a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents for appearing for the entrance examination of the PG course for pursuing further studies. The petitioner further applied for an extraordinary leave for three years after being selected for the same which was sanctioned by the respondents and accordingly, the petitioner signed a bond according to which she was to return to the said post for at least a period of five years after the competition of her course but she did not return to the post after the leave of three years and submitted her resignation letter which was not responded to by the respondents and the petitioner left the state. The petitioner was then asked to deposit a principal bond amount including interest vide a memorandum which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it was the apprehension of the petitioner that after the expiry of three months, the respondents had accepted her resignation and thus the demand of the principal amount including the interest was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the bond. It was further contended that the petitioner had become a permanent resident of Bengaluru after she got married and had a baby.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner committed serious illegality in not resuming her post after the expiry of the period of extraordinary leave and thus violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the bond and the resignation letter which she had submitted should not be treated as a resignation at all. It was further argued that it was the petitioner’s apprehension that after the expiry of three months, her resignation was treated to be accepted, then also, the petitioner was under obligation to join and discharge her duties and responsibilities under the respondents for, at least, those three months till the acceptance of her resignation.
Observations of the Court:
It was further stated that the conduct of the petitioner was in blatant violation of the order and she also failed to respect the legitimate expectation conceived by the State Government while sanctioning her extraordinary leave and further violated the terms and conditions laid down in the bond which stated that she would be bound to serve the Government of Tripura at least for a period of five years after the competition of her course in addition to violating Sub-rule 5(a) of Rule 46 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986.
The court after reading the Sub-rule 4(a), 5(a) of Rule 46 and Rule 56 together observed that the said rules intended to bind the Government servant to refund the principal bond amount together with interest before his/her resignation is accepted and the question of acceptance of resignation of a Government employee will come up only when the conditions laid down in the bond are fulfilled and thus the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner cannot be treated as a resignation before its acceptance by the concerned authority and resignation of the petitioner cannot be accepted unless and until the terms and conditions laid down in the bond are fulfilled and it was the obligation of the petitioner to refund the entire amount mentioned in the bond with interest.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s willingness to resign from the said post with immediate effect cannot be treated as a notice of resignation and the same is not sustainable in law and the period of absence should be treated as an unauthorized absence from duty and the present case was a fit case for exercise of discretionary and extraordinary power under Article 226.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pay the principal amount mentioned in the bond together with the interest.
Case Title: The State of Tripura v Sri Binoy Debbarma.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) No.369 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. T.K. Deb
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. D. Bhattacharya and Mr. M. Debbarma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
