Karnataka High Court
D Venkatesh vs The Registrar Of Co Operative ... on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38262-DB
WA No. 1312 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2022 (CS)
BETWEEN:
D VENKATESH,
S/O DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
CHAMALAPURA, DODDI VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571 450.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARADA AND:
VANI B
Location: HIGH 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA #1, ALSKER ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERAITVE SOCIETIES,
MANDYA SUB DIVISION,
MANDYA 571 401.
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANYA DISTRICT 571 428.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38262-DB
WA No. 1312 of 2022
3. PRATHIMAK KRISHI PATTINA
SAHAKARA SANGHA NYAMITHA LTD.,
KESHTURU 571 427.
R/BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE ADHYKSHA,
PRATHIMIKA KRISHI,
PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA
NYAMITHA LTD.,
KESTHUR, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571 427.
5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (IN CHARGE),
PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA
SANGHA NAYAMITHA LTD.,
KESTHUR, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTIRCT -571 427.
6. PRASHANTH R,
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT ADAGANAHALLI,
KESTUR POST,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571 427.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.10.2022 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 24350/2021
AND THE WRIT PETITION W.P. NO. 24350/2021 MAY KINDLY
BE DISMISSED.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:38262-DB
WA No. 1312 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This intra-court Appeal is seeks to call in question a
learned Single Judge's order dated 13.10.2022 whereby 6th
Respondent's W.P.No.24350/2021 the Resolution dated
30.11.2021 has been set at naught. The operative portion
of the order makes the matter evident:
"9. In that view of the matter, I am of the view
that the impugned resolution dated 30.11.2021
passed by the society, permitting the sixth
respondent to withdraw the said resignation
dated 16.06.2021 is bad in law. Accordingly the
resolution dated 30.11.2021, insofar as
permitting the sixth respondent herein to work
as CEO, is not correct and accordingly the
resolution dated 30.11.2021 in respect of the
subject matter permitting the sixth respondent
to work as CEO, is quashed. Accordingly, the
matter is remanded to the third
respondent/Society to reconsider the issue
afresh and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the provisions contained under
the Act."
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that
the earlier Resolution dated 30.11.2021 which accepted
resignation of the Appellant was rightly withdrawn at the
instance of Appellant's wife and therefore, the same could
NC: 2023:KHC:38262-DB
WA No. 1312 of 2022
not have been set aside at the instance of the Writ
Petitioner who happens to be the 6th Respondent herein.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
Appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the official Respondents and having perused
the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter
broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge. Resignation is a voluntary act on the part of an
employee by which he seeks to leave the service to which
he is appointed. An employee who has tendered
resignation voluntarily, is entitled to withdraw the same
before it is accepted, unless the Service Rules otherwise
provide. Even if the acceptance of resignation is not
communicated to the employee, it makes no difference.
Once the resignation is offered and the same is duly
accepted by the competent authority, resignation is
complete & irrevocable, subject to all just exceptions.
4. In Service Jurisprudence, removal, resignation,
retirement & death are the conventional modes of
NC: 2023:KHC:38262-DB
WA No. 1312 of 2022
determination of employer-employee relationship. They
cut the umbilical chord of employment. As already
mentioned above, an employee who has submitted the
resignation letter ordinarily can withdraw the same before
it is accepted, unless the law otherwise provides. But the
request for such withdrawal should flow from the hands of
concerned employee himself. That is not the case here.
Admittedly, it is the spouse of the employee who had
sought for the withdrawal of resignation of the employee
and that too after it was duly accepted by passing the
Resolution on 30.11.2021. No Rule or Ruling is brought to
our notice which recognizes such a right in the spouse of
an employee. Such an idea is alien to Service Law. This
above view inarticulately animates the impugned
judgment.
5. It is not the case of the Appellant that he was
not in a position to apply for the withdrawal of resignation
and therefore, he had authorized his wife to make such a
request and that he had acquiesced in the same.
NC: 2023:KHC:38262-DB
WA No. 1312 of 2022
Permitting any person other than the employee to seek
withdrawal of employee's resignation that too without his
consent, will have several undesirable consequences. If
the employee himself is not willing to be in employment,
how his spouse or children can cause his continuation in
service, is un-understandable to say the least. An
unwilling horse cannot be drawn to the river and made to
drink the water, even in the absence of thirst.
In the above circumstances, the appeal being
unworthy of merits, is liable to be and accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/Bsv
