Muhammed Asif Alam B K vs Kerala State Rutronix
2023 Latest Caselaw 5762 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 31456 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

         MUHAMMED ASIF ALAM B K.,
         AGED 48 YEARS
         S/O. BASHEER KANNU,
         "RAIHAN",
         T/C NO: 41/1637,
         MANACAUD P.O,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695009.

         BY ADVS.
         C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
         M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
         UTHARA A.S
         MAHESH CHANDRAN
         VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
         VIVEK NAIR P.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    KERALA STATE RUTRONIX,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA
         STATE RUTRONIX, C 11, ELANKOM GARDENS,
         SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695010.
    2    KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,
         THIRUVANATHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695035.
    3    THE REGISTRAR OF KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
         (ELECTRONIC FEDERATION),
         TRIVANDRUM - 695001.


         N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR - SC, KHVIB

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.31456 of 2022
                                :2 :




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

The petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P8 and P13 and

to command the respondents to allow the petitioner to

withdraw his resignation and allow him to continue in service

as Engineer.

2. The petitioner states that while he was working as

Engineer in the 1st respondent-Company, he sent an e-mail on

09.11.2018 stating that he is resigning from service.

3. The petitioner would submit that the e-mail was

sent due to severe mental tension, worries and frustrations.

Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 letter dated 07.10.2019

seeking to withdraw the said resignation.

4. When the 1st respondent took a stand that the

petitioner's resignation has been accepted, the petitioner

preferred an appeal against the decision of the Board of

Directors of the 1st respondent-Company before the Registrar WP(C) No.31456 of 2022

of Khadi and Village Industries Co-operative Societies

Electronic Federation, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P9.

This Court delivered Ext.P10 judgment and directed the 3 rd

respondent to take up Ext.P20 appeal of the petitioner and

disposed of the same after affording an opportunity of being

heard to the 1st respondent-Company as well as to the

petitioner.

5. The Khadi and Village Industries Board, as per

Ext.P11, directed the 1st respondent-Company to reconsider

the decision on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner

approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.34993 of 2019. The

1st respondent-Company thereafter sent Ext.P13

communication to the Secretary to the Kerala Khadi and

Village Industries Board informing that the Director Board of

the Company has decided not to review the decision to accept

the resignation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by Exts.P8 and

P13, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The petitioner would contend that the e-mail

resignation was sent by the petitioner out of mental tension, WP(C) No.31456 of 2022

worries and frustrations. His mother had died on 13.10.2018

and his wife had undergone a major surgery on 18.10.2018.

All these added to his worries and tensions. The petitioner

thereafter sought to withdraw the resignation. As long as the

resignation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by

the respondents and communicated to the petitioner, the

petitioner has a right to withdraw the resignation, contended

the counsel for the petitioner.

7. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

Ext.P13 communication is a Non-speaking Order. This Court

in Ext.P10 judgment directed the Khadi and Village Industries

Board to take a decision on the appeal. After considering the

facts of the case, the Board directed the Managing Director of

the 1st respondent-Company to review the decision. However,

the 1st respondent-Company has refused to review.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2

and 3. In spite of notice, the 1 st respondent is not represented

before this Court today.

WP(C) No.31456 of 2022

9. From the pleadings it is evident that the petitioner

has submitted an e-mail resignation on 09.11.2018. The

petitioner later withdrew the resignation as per Ext.P7 and the

petitioner requested the 1 st respondent-Company to accept

the withdrawal and permit the petitioner to continue in service.

When there was no positive response, the petitioner filed

appeal before the Khadi and Village Industries Board. This

Court as per Ext.P10 judgment directed the Khadi and Village

Industries Board to consider the application for withdrawal of

resignation submitted by the petitioner.

10. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent-

Company ought to have taken an informed decision and

passed a reasoned order in that regard. Instead of doing so,

the 1st respondent-Company has issued Ext.P13

communication stating that after considering the matter the

Board of Directors have decided not to reopen the issue of

resignation of the petitioner.

11. When the petitioner has preferred an appeal

against the decision of the 1 st respondent-Company not to WP(C) No.31456 of 2022

permit the petitioner to withdraw the resignation and the

appellate authority had directed the 1 st respondent-Company

to reconsider the matter, the 1 st respondent-Company was

bound to take an appropriate and reasoned decision. Ext.P13

does not disclose any reason whatsoever. In the

circumstances, Ext.P13 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

12. Ext.P13 is therefore set aside. The 1 st respondent-

Company is directed to reconsider the matter and pass

appropriate speaking order within a further period of two

months.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

sss WP(C) No.31456 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31456/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMO DATED 6/11/2015.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6/11/2015.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/2/2018.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13/7/2018.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/12/2018.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/01/2019.

EXHIBIT P7               A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                         07/10/2019    ISSUED   BY   THE   FIRST
                         RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8               TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED ACCEPTING
                         THE RESIGNATION.
EXHIBIT P9               A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED

10/11/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/1/2021 IN WPO NO: 34993/2019.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/12/2021.