Managing Director U.P. ... vs Shri Kamlesh Singh Chauhan And ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 2737 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1374 of 2008
 

 
Appellant :- Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Lucknow
 
Respondent :- Shri Kamlesh Singh Chauhan And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- K.N. Mishra,Rohit Agarwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Satyam Singh, Shiv Nath Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

1. Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondents. None appeared on behalf of appellant though called in revise. In the circumstance, we proceed to hear and decide this appeal exparte.

2. This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen against judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing petitioner's Writ Petition No. 35793 of 2008. It is a short order and reads as under :-

"Heard Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mishra, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.

During course of arguments, a fair submission is made by Sri Saxena that petitioner is ready to deposit whatever amount is said to be payable by the petitioner as on today, according to the claim of respondents, but an observation may be made that as and when final liability of petitioner is fixed/decided, then the amount so deposited by the petitioner, after adjustment, remaining amount for which, petitioner is found entitled, that may be refunded.

If compliance of this direction is ensured, petitioner's resignation may be accepted so that both sides may get rid of each other.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands decided."

3. A bare perusal of order shows that the same has been passed after proposal made by Sri Saxena, learned counsel for petitioner-respondents and it does not appear that learned Single Judge has obtained consent from other side also. Moreover, neither resignation can be conditional nor for its acceptance, any condition can be imposed. Appellant stated that since departmental enquiry was pending, resignation could not be accepted.

4. Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there was an interim order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17787 of 1996 on 23.05.1996 in which disciplinary proceedings were initiated but we have found that above writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2010, passing following order :

"Sri A.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instruction in the matter. Counsel for the respondent is present. The petition is dismissed for want of instruction. Interim order, if any stands vacated."

5. Once the resignation is not accepted, there is no further occasion to Employer to impose any condition for acceptance of resignation.

6. In view thereof, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. Appellants are directed to complete enquiry and pass final order expeditiously.

Order Date :- 10.4.2019

Siddhant Sahu