Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Batham vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 19 February, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3692
1 WA-278-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 278 of 2025
MAHESH KUMAR BATHAM
Versus
THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Singhal - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been
preferred by the appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by the order
dated 23.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.4036/2012, whereby
learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner Union.
2. The writ petition was preferred by the appellant/petitioner seeking
quashment of order of dated 30.08.2007, whereby resignation of the
petitioner has been accepted
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in pursuance to the
advertisement issued for the post of Trainee Development Officer under
special recruitment drive by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3692
2 WA-278-2025
applied for the same under the category of Scheduled Tribe (ST quota)
mentioning his caste as ST. Petitioner also submitted a certificate showing
himself as Scheduled Tribe Manjhi. After the written examination, petitioner
was short listed for interview and thereafter he was selected and vide order
dated 20.03.2006 he was appointed on the post of Trainee Development
Officer. One Preetam Batham filed a complaint on 17.08.2006, according to
which 'Batham Manjhi' was not included in the ST, which is kept under
OBC. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked several times to verify the caste
certificate. Respondent Corporation wrote a letter dt.16.11.2006 to SDO,
Gwalior to verify the caste certificate of the petitioner, on which it is
informed that said caste certificate has not been issued by their department.
The matter was given for investigation and thereafter a report was submitted
showing the petitioner to be of OBC category and that the certificate
produced by the petitioner was not issued by the office of SDO. Thereafter, a
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not file
any reply, instead submitted resignation on 10.08.2007, which was accepted
on 30.08.2007. Hence, petitioner filed W.P.No.4036/2012.
4. Learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition by observing that the
petitioner submitted his resignation on 10.08.2007 with immediate effect and
the same became effective immediately from the date of 10.08.2007. He did
not choose any date for resignation from a future date, therefore, the act of
resignation from office became complete and his services have been
terminated with immediate effect. Therefore, it was not possible for the
petitioner to revoke or cancel his resignation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3692
3 WA-278-2025
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
prior to acceptance of the resignation, appellant has already moved an
application for withdrawal of the same, but said application was not
considered. It is also submitted that resignation was submitted on 10.08.2007
and the application for withdrawal of resignation was moved on 13.08.2007,
whereas the resignation was accepted on 30.08.2007. Thus, it is clear that the
competent authority has accepted the resignation after more than 17 days of
filing the application for withdrawal and the authority was well aware of the
fact that the employee has intended to withdraw the same. Aforesaid facts
have not been considered by the learned Writ Court while passing the
impugned order.
6. Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer supporting
the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court and prayed for
dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, the appellant/petitioner is taking exception to the
order passed by the learned Writ Court, by which learned Writ Court
dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay
and laches as well as on merits. However, submissions of the respondents
and the return filed in this regard by the respondents/Life Insurance
Corporation indicate that appellant has moved the application just to avoid
the wrath of departmental proceeding likely to be taken against him. He was
member of Oher Backward Classes category but applied the job of
Apprentice Development Officer under the category of Scheduled Tribe (ST
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3692
4 WA-278-2025
quota) and he mentioned his caste as Scheduled Tribe in the application.
When a complaint was made by one Preetam Batham on 17.08.2006 to the
Central Office Mumbai, then appellant was asked several times to verify the
caste certificate but he evaded. Ultimately, vide show cause notice dated
05.07.2007 (Annexure R/8 filed in the writ petition) Senior Divisional
Manager (SDM)/Disciplinary Authority sought reply from the appellant else
he will have to face proceedings of termination, then immediately thereafter
on 10.08.2007, petitioner resigned. Said resignation was duly accepted on
30.08.2007. Therefore, it is not the case of resignation simplicitor but
appellant deliberately wanted to avoid the wrath of departmental proceeding.
Therefore, even if he rescinded and withdrew the resignation on 13.08.2007,
it was of no avail because by that time because he himself mentioned this
fact that his resignation to be accepted with immediate effect, therefore
respondents accepted the resignation.
9. One more fact deserves consideration is that petitioner/appellant was
on probation and when a person is on probation, then effect of voluntary
resignation with immediate effect can not be equated with the case of a
regular employee.
10. One more ground stares at appellant and that is of inordinate delay
and laches in initiation of proceeding. In 2007, he made resignation which
was accepted, however, he preferred petition in the year 2012. No delay has
been explained for waiting for five years. Such delay can not be condoned
and Writ Court rightly dismissed the petition on the point of delay also.
11. In the present case when petitioner/appellant instead of facing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3692
5 WA-278-2025
departmental proceeding evaded the same by resigning, then it appears that
he wanted to avoid the departmental proceedings. He obtained employment
through fraud.
12. Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings. It is well settled principle of
law that Fraud Vitiates Everything. This principle has been dealt with by the
Apex Court in its various judgments viz. in the case of R. Ravindra Reddy
Vs. H. Ramaiah Reddy, (2010) 3 SCC 214, Badami Bai (D) Tr. L.R. Vs.
Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574, Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. Vs. Sant Singh,
(2016) 11 SCC 378, K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Express
Newspapers (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133, DDA Vs.
Skipper Construction, (2007) 15 SCC 601 and in the case of Jai Narain
Parasrampuria Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756.
13. In R. Ravindra Reddy (supra) , the Apex Court held as under:
"39. As far as fraud is concerned, it is no doubt true, as
submitted by Mr Ramachandran, that fraud vitiates all
actions taken pursuant thereto and in Lord Denning's
words "fraud unravels everything......."
14. Therefore, in the cumulative analysis, learned Writ Court did not
err in passing the impugned order. No case for interference is made out.
Appeal bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
