Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Javali Gururajendra S/O J ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar, G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100553 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100435 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)
IN WA NO. 100553 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAVALI GURURAJENDRA
S/O. J.VEERANNA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL ROAD
L.B.SHASTRI EXTENSION KOTTUR,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
JAGADISH T R
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRNASPORT
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES,
2023.10.10
11:12:03 +0530
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRNASPORT
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027.
3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NWKRTC, HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED
1.12.2022 IN W.P.NO.100464/2014 (S-KSRTC) PASSED BY LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED
FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WP NO.100435 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(ESTABLISHMENT SECTION),
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAVALI GURURAJENDRA S/O. J. VEERANNA
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
L.B.SASTRI EXTENSION, KOTTUR,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583201.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NWKRTC HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI-581116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01.12.2022 IN W.P.NO.100464/2014 (S-KSRTC) PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals are directed against the impugned
order dated 01.12.2022 passed in WP No.100464/2014 by
the learned Single Judge. WA No.100553/2023 is preferred
by the appellant/writ petitioner, while WA No.100435/2023 is
preferred by the respondent/Corporation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties
and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the writ
petitioner was working as an Assistant Traffic Manager in the
respondent-Corporation and criminal proceedings were
initiated against him under Preventions of Corruption Act.
The writ petitioner submitted his resignation on 27.03.2008
and he was acquitted in criminal proceedings initiated
against him and Departmental Enquiry initiated against him
also resulted in exoneration on 31.08.2012. In the
meanwhile, writ petitioner submitted letters dated 8.3.2012
and 29.03.2012 intimating the respondent/Corporation that
he did not want to resign his job and letter of resignation
was being withdrawn. It was also brought to the notice of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
the respondent/Corporation that since they did not accept
the resignation letter, there was no impediment for the
respondent/Corporation to permit the petitioner to withdraw
his tendered resignation. However, respondent/Corporation
issued Communication dated 8.2.2013 to the writ petitioner
accepting his resignation and thereby relieving him from
services, aggrieved by which, writ petitioner approached this
Court by way of the instant petition.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single
Judge came to the conclusion that the since resignation
tendered by the petitioner on 27.03.2008 was withdrawn by
him vide letters dated 8.3.2012 and 29.03.2012, much prior
to resignation being accepted by the respondent/Corporation
on 8.2.2013, the said acceptance of resignation after its
withdrawal was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and as
such, proceeded to quash the said communications/orders
and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with
50% backwages w.e.f. 8.2.2013. Aggrieved by the
impugned order allowing the writ petition, the Corporation is
before this Court in WA No.100435/2023 and aggrieved by
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
the impugned order insofar it relates to restricting
backwages only to 50%, the writ petitioner is before this
Court in WA No.100553/2023.
5. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order will indicate that in the light of undisputed
fact that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on
27.03.2008 and had withdrawn the same vide letters dated
8.3.2012 and 29.03.2012, much prior to resignation
accepted by the respondent/Corporation, which was
undisputedly done on 8.2.2013 by passing the impugned
order/communication, the learned Single Judge correctly set-
aside the impugned order, which was illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to law and was vitiated and deserved to be set-
aside. It is well settled law that so long as any resignation
tendered is withdrawn by a person before its acceptance, the
same is permissible and the respondent/Corporation cannot
refuse permission for the said withdrawal by subsequent
order/communication purporting to accept the resignation
after its withdrawal when intention of withdrawal was already
communicated to the respondent. In the instant case, it is
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
an undisputed fact that though the writ petitioner submitted
his resignation on 27.03.2008, he communicated his
intention to withdraw the resignation vide letters dated
8.3.2012 and 29.03.2012 and only subsequently, the
respondent/Corporation has proceeded to accept the
resignation much later by passing the impugned order on
8.2.2013 much after intention of the petitioner to withdraw
the resignation was already communicated to the
respondent/Corporation. Under these circumstances, we are
of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was
fully justified in allowing the writ petition and setting aside
the impugned communication/order dated 8.2.2013 and
directing the respondent/Corporation reinstatement of the
petitioner into service.
6. Insofar as direction issued by the learned Single
Judge for payment of 50% backwages w.e.f. 8.2.2013 is
concerned, in the light of finding recorded by the learned
Single Judge that the aforesaid communication/order dated
8.2.2013 was illegal and arbitrary, the learned Single Judge
was also fully justified in directing payment of 50%
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11978-DB
WA No. 100553 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100435 of 2023
backwages, in view of the said order being found illegal and
arbitrary and consequently, the said finding regarding
payment of 50% backwages also cannot be said to be
contrary to law or facts warranting interference by this Court
in the present appeals. Accordingly, we do not find any
merit in both the appeals, which are hereby accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd
JUDGE
Sd
JUDGE
JTR
