Delhi High Court

Sujjan Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 1 December, 2014

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of Decision: 01.12.2014

+      W.P.(C) 4751/2014

       SUJJAN SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Narender Sharma, Adv. along
                                        with petition in person.

                           versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.              ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

"Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one".

Mark Twain

1. On the last date, of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner

took a passover in the matter to ascertain from the petitioner about the

duration of the PG Diploma Course which was undertaken by him and

after taking a passover, no one had appeared for the petitioner and the

matter was adjourned to this date. Today, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in

Court, submits that the petitioner had a PG diploma in Orthopaedics from

the Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore. He also submits that

the petitioner was admitted in the said course on 31 st May, 2009 and he

completed the same in May, 2012.

2. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letters

dated 29th June, 2012 and 15th March, 2012 through which the respondents

had accepted his resignation as were submitted by him vide letter dated

5.5.2010. The petitioner's grievance is that prior to the acceptance of the

resignation, he had withdrawn the same vide letter dated 14.6.2011. The

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a settled

legal position where an employee withdraws his resignation prior to its

acceptance by the employer, such resignation should not be accepted by

the employer.

3. We now turn to the facts of the case before us.

4. The petitioner had joined the services of respondent No.1 as an

Assistant Commandant (CPS-2006) in the year 2008 and he was lastly

posted at 11th Battalion, Sashastra Seema Bal, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India at Didihat, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. As per the

case of the petitioner, his father was abducted in the year 2009 and was

murdered in January, 2010 and in these circumstances, the petitioner was

the only person left to take care of his family and especially his aged

mother; that he resigned from service due to personal problems but after

having tendered his resignation with the respondents, he did not receive

any communication from them except that a letter dated 16.11.2010 was

sent to him directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,992/- towards his

outstanding dues; that he had appeared before the Grievance Committee

of the respondents on 14.6.2011 to discuss his personal grievances and

thereafter he withdrew his resignation; that after having withdrawn his

resignation, the respondents proceeded ahead to take a decision to accept

his resignation as was made on 5.5.2010; that he made representations

dated 24th June, 2012 and 14th July, 2012, to impress upon the respondents

to accept his request for withdrawal of the resignation, but through

Memorandum dated 29th June, 2012, the respondents had refused to

accede to his request.

5. In the background of the above facts, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has strongly urged that a direction be given to the respondents

for allowing the petitioner to join back his service on the post of Assistant

Commandant. He seeks quashing of the letters dated 29th June, 2012 and

15th March, 2012.

6. The petitioner is strongly opposed by Mr. Vivek Goyal, the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents. He submits that the petitioner has

suppressed vital facts from this Court about having undertaken the

aforesaid PG Diploma Course for a period of three years and it was only

during the course of hearing that this fact came to light and subsequently,

a direction was given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to disclose

the relevant facts about the said PG Diploma Course undertaken by the

petitioner. He also submits that the letter through which the resignation

was withdrawn by the petitioner was never addressed to the Competent

Authority which in case of the petitioner is the President of India and the

same was wrongly addressed to the Director General. He further submits

that delay on the part of the respondents in not accepting the resignation

primarily took place as the petitioner had failed to pay the outstanding

dues and other allowances, in terms of the request made to him vide letter

dated 16.11.2010.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.

8. The petitioner had resigned from his service vide his resignation

letter dated 5.5.2010. On perusal of the resignation letter, the reason

given by the petitioner was that his personal and family problems were

not allowing him to pursue his duties in the police force because of his job

being transferable, owing to which he was not able to give full attention to

his family as and when needed. Vide communication dated 16.11.2010,

the respondents had written a letter to the Director, Vydehi Institute of

Medical Sciences, Bangalore so as to inform the petitioner, who was

undergoing a PG Diploma Course from the said institute, to deposit the

outstanding dues of Rs.1,46,992/- so as to process his case for resignation

from Government Service. In this letter, the respondents stated that

efforts were made by the unit concerned to contact the petitioner at his

Delhi residence but he could not be traced as his family members showed

ignorance about his whereabouts. The respondents further stated that it

was learnt by their office that the petitioner was presently undergoing a

PG diploma (Orthopaedics) at the aforesaid institute and accordingly, a

request was made to the institute to direct him to deposit the said

outstanding dues to his unit at the earliest, otherwise, it would be bound to

take legal action against him. In this letter, it was also communicated that

the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the unit with effect from

25.6.2009 till the date of the said communication. In response to this

communication, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.96, 075/- along

with his letter dated 24.12.2010 and in his letter, he reiterated his request

for acceptance of his resignation at the earliest. Undeniably, the

respondents took an unduly long time in accepting the petitioner's

resignation vide Memorandum dated 29th June, 2012 and in between, the

petitioner vide his letter dated 14.6.2011 requested for withdrawal of his

resignation. Under general principles, an offer of resignation can be

withdrawn before the same is accepted by the Competent Authority and

on the same reasoning, there can be no withdrawal after the offer of

resignation is accepted.

9. The applicability of this general principle will however, depend on

the facts of each case as neither at the time of resignation nor at the time

of withdrawal, there should be any kind of malafide or deceitful conduct

by either of the parties.

10. In Shangrila Food Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Life Insurance

Corporation of India and Anr, 1996 SCC (5) 54, the Supreme Court held

as follows:

"It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This Jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage

gained by a party priory, before invoking the Jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief....."

11. In the case of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authorities Of India Ltd. &

Ors., 2008 ( 10 ) SCALE 227, the Supreme Court held as follows:

"The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."

12. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner who had tendered his

resignation so as to take care of his family and personal needs, in fact took

admission in a PG Diploma course at Vydehi Institute of Medical

Sciences, Bangalore on 31st May, 2009 and the said course was for a

period of three years. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant

Commandant which was a group 'A' post and his resignation was in fact a

ploy to clandestinely undergo the said PG Diploma course and he had

suppressed this fact from the respondents and has not bothered to disclose

the same even in the present petition. It is unfortunate that the process of

this Court in being used with malafides and dishonesty to achieve a purely

selfish gain by the petitioner. The Courts are to be vigilant against all

efforts to overshadow the ethos of justice and fair play. The jurisdiction of