Bharat Singh Rawat v. National Institute of Technology Calicut

“C.R.” ## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 28TH VAISAKHA, 1942 ## WP(C).No.14345 OF 2019(P) ## PETITIONER/S: BHARAT SINGH RAWAT AGED 42 YEARS EX-DEPUTY REGISTRAR, FLAT NO.38, HIM VIHAR APARTMENTS, PLOT NO.8, PATPARGANJ, I P EXTENSION, DELHI-110092. MB-9910905789. BY BHARAT SINGH RAWAT(PARTY IN PERSON) ## RESPONDENT/S: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, THROUGH DIRECTOR, NIT CAMPUS.P.O., CALICUT-673601. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.ANDREWS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR R1 BY ADV. KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD AND RESERVED ON 1902-2020, THE COURT ON 18-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-2-** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 18th day of May 2020 Heard Bharat Singh Rawat/petitioner and Standing Counsel Shah Padman for respondent. ## . _**"Never take permanent decisions on temporary feelings" is the adage**_ 2. In the case on hand the decisions taken by petitioner through letter dated 08.11.2018 (Ext.P5), resigning from the post of Deputy Registrar in respondent/University; the respondent/ University after receiving Ext.P9 letter dated 28.11.2018 withdrawing the resignation tendered in Ext.P5, accepted the resignation and relieved petitioner w.e.f. 11.01.2019 and these decisions as issues of fact and law are stated for adjudication in this writ petition. 3. The circumstances preceding to the filing of the writ petition, by and large, are not in dispute between the parties. The **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-3-** respondent/University, pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2020 made in the present writ petition has placed before the Court the original record together with a xerox copy set of the original file for perusal of the Court. The respondent/University has prepared and placed before the Court the chronology of dates and events for convenience of the Court. This Court having regard to the undisputed circumstances leading to the filing of writ petition and as well, for convenience prefers to refer to the chronology of dates and events by referring to the record placed for perusal of this Court. 4. The petitioner possesses LLB degree from the University of Delhi and LLM from Kurukshetra University. The petitioner was an employee of Delhi Technological University. On the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was relieved from service by Delhi Technological University with effect from 31.05.2016. On 17.08.2016 the respondent/University issued advertisement calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-4-** up the post of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The petitioner is one of the applicants for the post of Deputy Registrar, the Selection Committee in the meeting held on 07.01.2017 at IIT Madras recommended the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Registrar against the advertisement dated 17.08.2016. On 04.02.2017 the respondent issued offer of appointment to petitioner and on the same date the offer of appointment was accepted. On 07.02.2017 petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar and on 08.02.2017 the petitioner joined service and was entrusted with the duties of Deputy Registrar (Establishment). 5. The file produced by the University reveals that the petitioner from the earliest point in time i.e., on 12.06.2018, of joining service has been applying to different Institutions/Organisations to work on deputation and the requests made by the petitioner, subject to applicable rules and procedures, were forwarded by the respondent to the concerned Organization. The respondent University lays much emphasis on petitioner **-5-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** applying to different Institutions/Organisations to go on deputation to state that for all purposes the petitioner was not willing to work or continue to work at NIT Calicut. 6. The petitioner, on 27.08.2018 directly applied to East Delhi Municipal Corporation for working on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. In other words, petitioner submitted advance copy directly to East Delhi Municipal Corporation and later on requested the respondent on 10.10.2018 for approval to work on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. On 12.10.2018 the respondent forwarded petitioner’s application, as per the procedure to East Delhi Municipal Corporation. 6.1 While matters stood thus, on 08.11.2018 the petitioner submitted notice of resignation Ext.P26 to respondent. On 15.11.2018 the respondent, returning Ext.P26, called upon the petitioner to furnish the reasons for petitioner’s unhappiness which is mentioned in letter dated 08.11.2018 (Ext.P26) for resigning to the employment in respondent/University. The petitioner submitted **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-6-** Ext.P5 Notice of resignation dated 16.11.2018 however reiterating the contents in Ext.P26 with cosmetic changes. The respondent after acknowledging Ext.P5 letter/notice of resignation dated 16.11.2018, on the same day, from the record made available appears, has forwarded the request of petitioner in Ext.P5 to the competent authority/Director for approval. On 16.11.2018 the Registrar of respondent University relieved the petitioner from the duties of Deputy Registrar (Establishment) and assigned to petitioner the duties of Deputy Registrar (Administration). On 16.11.2018 the petitioner proceeded on leave prefixing the holidays on 17.11.2018 and 18.11.2018. On 22.11.2018 the competent authority approved the notice of resignation submitted by petitioner and the prospective acceptance was communicated to petitioner on 04.12.2018 in Ext.P10. 6.2. In the interregnum, on 27.11.2018, the respondent received communication from East Delhi Municipal Corporation about the selection of petitioner pursuant to application forwarded **-7-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** by the respondent on 12.10.2018 to work on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. On 28.11.2018 petitioner sent Ext.P9 email to respondent withdrawing notice of resignation tendered in Ext.P5, in view of selection of petitioner on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. On 04.12.2018 vide Ext.P10 the respondent informed East Delhi Municipal Corporation about the acceptance of notice of resignation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner through Ext.P11 dated 07.12.2018 represented to respondent to reconsider the decision taken in Ext.P10 and consider the request of petitioner in Ext.P9 withdrawing the notice of resignation submitted in Ext. P5. The request of petitioner made in Ext.P11 was considered by the competent authority and rejected through Ext.P12 dated 07.01.2019. The petitioner was relieved with effect from 11.01.2019 and experience certificate was issued on 11.01.2019. 7. On 23.05.2019 the present writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of _Certiorari_ quashing the impugned Office Orders Exhibit P10 (dated- **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-8-** 04.12.2018), Exhibit P12 (dated- 07.01.2019) and Exhibit P13 (dated 11.01.2019); (ii) To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent NITC to allow Exhibit P9 (dated 28.11.2018) and Exhibit P11 (dated 07.12.2018): (iii) To rejoin his duty with effect from date of relieving i.e., 11.01.2019 with full back wages and other allowances during the period he was out from the service and counting the above period as if he was in service for all purposes; (iv) To allow compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, loss and injury suffered by the petitioner; (v) To allow cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.55,000/-; and any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 8. The petitioner raises several grounds in fact and law against orders impugned in W P. I have perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and additional pleadings raised by the petitioner in this behalf. The Court for convenience and brevity prefers to refer to the important grounds raised by the petitioner against impugned orders as follows. 8.1. The petitioner states that the petitioner, when submitted Ext.P8, was under tremendous psychological pressure on account of ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-9-** a few family disputes with his wife. The petitioner in support of suffering from psychological illness refers to the treatment taken by the petitioner during the contemporary period. The petitioner on account of psychological pressure and physical weakness, without properly understanding the consequences of Ext.P8, alleges to have submitted Ext.P5 to respondent. The petitioner, after introducing the circumstances under which Ext.P5 has been submitted, contends that Ext.P5 is a notice of resignation and is not a resignation letter intending to resign from the post of Deputy Registrar in unequivocal terms particularly by adhering to the procedure applicable for severance of relation between petitioner and respondent. According to petitioner, Ext.P5 at best could be treated as notice of resignation and Ext.P5 ought not to have been treated as an unconditional resignation letter made in unequivocal terms, intending to resign from the post of Deputy Registrar or severe the relationship of employee and employer between the parties. The petitioner further canvasses that in Ext.P5 the petitioner reserved **-10-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** the right to withdraw i.e., resignation from the post of Deputy Registrar and that the petitioner in the alternative had requested the respondent to waive the notice period, which would enable severance of relationship of employee and employer without delay. In the case on hand, the respondent committed illegality by treating Ext.P5 as a letter of resignation and accepted the letter. Acceptance of mere notice of resignation is impermissible in law or illegal. The petitioner in support of said contention refers to and relies on the judgment of Delhi High Court reported in _DPP School v. Director of Education_[1] . The petitioner further contends that he has withdrawn Ext.P5 before communication of acceptance of resignation or the petitioner was relieved from job with effect from 11.01.2019. The respondent committed yet another illegality inasmuch as the resignation was accepted by an authority who is not competent under the Act and the Statutes. 9. The petitioner contends that resignation to the office means relinquishment of one's own right in relation to an office and > 1 2006 LLR 520 ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-11-** resignation must be clear and categorical in communication to warrant a decision by the employer. According to him, in the case on hand, through Ext.P5 he has not in unequivocal terms informed that the petitioner is intending to resign to the post of Deputy Registrar. Ext.P5 at best, from the plain reading of this exhibit, will have to be treated as notice of resignation. Ext.P5 is not clear or categorical in its expression to say that the petitioner intended to resign to the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from a date specifically given. On the other hand, Ext.P5 reserved right to withdraw the resignation tendered. The petitioner through Ext.P5 requested for waiver of notice period for resigning to the office. Petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court reported in _Prabha Atri (Dr.) v. State of Utter Pradesh_[2] . The Apex Court has considered the reported judgment in _P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India_[3] and _Moti Ram v. Param Devi_[4] . Paragraph 8 of the reported 2 2003 LLR 230 3 1984 2 141 4 (1993) 2 SCC 725 **-12-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** ## judgment the Apex Court has considered the circumstances in _P.K. Ramachandra Iyer_ case and held thus: “… this Court had an occasion to consider the nature and character of a letter written by one of the petitioners in that case who after stating in the letter that he has been all along patiently waiting for the redressal of his grievance, yet justice has not been done to him and "as such, after showing so much patience in the matter, I am sorry to decide that I should resign from the membership of the Faculty in protest against such a treatment and against the discrimination and victimization shown to me by the Head of the Division in the allotment of students of 1968 and 1969 batches and departmental candidates". In that context, this Court observed that the callous and heartless attitude of the Academic Council in seizing an opportunity to get rid of him by treating the said letter to be a letter of resignation when really he was all along making representations seeking justice to him and "out of exasperation the said person wrote that letter stating that the only honourable course left open to him was to resign rather than suffer". In _Moti Ram Vs. Param Devi_ [(1993)2 SCC 725] , this Court observed as hereunder:- "As pointed out by this Court, `resignation' means the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a com- **-13-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** plete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment. It has also been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. [Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra]. If the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority. The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in praesenti. _**A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the date of communication**_ **. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intention to relinquish, e.g., acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it."** **(emphasis added)** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-14-** 10. It is further argued that Ext.P5 is conditional and will have to be interpreted and understood as notice of resignation alone and not a letter of resignation. Notice of resignation is different from resignation letter submitted by an employee. The petitioner, by drawing the attention of the Court to office note written on Ext.P26, argues that the respondent rightly treated this exhibit as not conforming to the format of resignation prescribed by the regulation of University. However, when the very same content is resubmitted through Ext.P5, Ext.P5 is treated as resignation letter and accepted. Such course is impermissible, amounts to illegal or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction or discretion conferred on respondent. For the said proposition that notice of resignation is not resignation, in the sense it is understood in service jurisprudence, the petitioner relies on the judgment reported in _DPP School_ case. Therefore, the order communicated on 04.12.2018 accepting resignation is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to exercising the jurisdiction contrary to the accepted or established norms by **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-15-** legal precedents in this behalf. 11. The petitioner further argues that the resignation letters were delivered on respondent on 08.11.2018 and 16.11.2018. As already noted on 24.11.2018, the respondent received letter from East Delhi Municipal Corporation requesting respondent to relieve petitioner from service of respondent so that petitioner can work on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. The petitioner on 28.11.2018 (Ext.P9) has withdrawn the letter of resignation sent in Ext.P5. The respondent without properly considering the request of petitioner for withdrawing the notice of resignation accepted Ext.P5 and relieved him with effect from 07.01.2019. 12. The argument advanced in this behalf is that the petitioner is entitled firstly to withdraw the letter (Ext.P5) even treated as notice of resignation or resignation letter before it is accepted by the respondent. A dispute, in fact, is introduced on the exact date of acceptance of Ext.P5 i.e., _ante_ dated or attended to by the respondent in the normal working space or time. The petitioner **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-16-** tried to contend that the respondent after receiving the withdrawal letter dated 28.11.2018 has accepted Ext.P5 and allowed petitioner to relieve from service from 11.01.2019. The objection is that the respondent is under obligation to look at the request of petitioner for withdrawing the notice of resignation already submitted in Exts.P5 before the decision is communicated in Ext.P10. The petitioner firstly is entitled to withdraw before Ext.P5 is accepted. Secondly the petitioner can withdraw if the date of withdrawal from service is from a prospective date before the expiry of the relieving period. The communication of acceptance is very important where the relationship could be severed by bilateral decisions. For the said purpose petitioner relies on the decisions reported in _Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra_[5] . The petitioner relies on paragraph nos.51, 60 and 61 which read thus: “ 51. It will bear repetition that the general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes > 5 (1978) 2 SCC 301 **-17-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office- tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office-tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. In the case of a Judge of a High Court, who is a constitutional functionary and under Proviso (a) to Article 217(1) has a unilateral right, or privilege to resign his office, his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office. If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in praesanti, the resignation terminates his office tenure forthwith, and cannot, therefore, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. But, if he by such writing chooses to resign from a future date, the act resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge. Can at any time before the arrival of that prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal. xxx xxx xxx 60 The next decision worthy of notice is Y.K. Mathur v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra). In that case, two Municipal Coun- **-18-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** cillors of the Corporation of Delhi sent their resignation letters on November 16, 1972 to the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, resigning their seats. One of those letters was a resignation in praesenti and was dated November 16, 1972. The other letter of resignation sent by O. P. Jain reads as under "I resign from my seat. Please accept. Sd/- Om Prakash Jain 16. 12.1972" This letter being in the nature of a post-dated cheque, was construed as a letter of resignation to be effective from future date, viz. December 16, 1972. On these premises, question arose whether this resignation could be withdrawn by the Member concerned before that date. Sachar J., speaking for the Division Bench, answered this question, in these terms:- "It is the free volition of the councillor concerned as to the date from which he wishes to resign. There is no logic in saying that even though a councillor deliberately mentions in his resignation letter that it should be effective from a given future date, he would nevertheless be deemed to have resigned from an earlier date i.e. date on which the letter is delivered. This would be contrary to the deliberately expressed intention of the councillor to resign from a particular future date. But is there any prohibition that once the resignation letter has been sent which is to be effective from a future date it cannot be withdrawn even before that date? The **-19-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** statute does not in any way limit the authority of the councillor who has sent his resignation' from a prospective date to withdraw it before that date is reached. The resignation which is to be effective from a future date necessarily implied that if that date has 'not reached it would be open to the councillor concerned to withdraw it." In support of this enunciation, the learned Judge relied on the ratio of the decisions of this Court in Jai Ram v. Union of India - 1954 SC 584, and Rai Kumar v. Union of India – 1969 SC 180. 61. It was also contended, as has been argued before us that if a resignation has been sent prospectively, the only effect is that the seat, would become vacant from that date, but the resignation would be effective from the date it was delivered to the competent authority. The Court repelled this argument with these pertinent observations:- "Under Section 33(1)(b), both the resignation and the vacancy of the seat are effective from the same time. There cannot be different times, one for resignation and the other for vacation of seat. Vacancy will only occur when resignation is effective, and if it is from future date both resignation and vacation of seat will be effective simultaneously." 13. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to withdraw or revoke the request of resignation before the request becomes effective. In other words, as long as the relationship of master and servant subsists between the petitioner and the respondent, and till **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-20-** the petitioner is actually relieved from service the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the notice of resignation in Ext.P5. The petitioner in support of his argument that there is _locus poenitentiae_ to withdraw the notice of resignation, relies on judgments of Supreme Court reported in _J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India_[6] and _Union of India v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy_[7] . In _J.N.Srivastava_ case the Supreme Court has considered the short question whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice of three months submitted by him on 03.10.1989 which was to come into effect from 31.01.1990. The Supreme Court after referring to the decision in _Balram Gupta_ case has observed as follows: _“In our view the said reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on the facts of the case. It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228._ _And allowed the appeal.”_ > 6 (1998) 9 SCC 559 7 AIR 1969 SC 180 ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-21-** 14. The petitioner argues that either in the case of resignation or voluntary retirement is concerned the employee is entitled to withdraw the request made either for resigning to the post or offer made under VRS before it is actually effected. In other words, he has _locus poenitentiae_ to withdraw before the resignation is effected. 15. In _Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy_ , the Supreme Court has in paragraph 6 held as follows: “We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The reliance placed for the appellants on the decision reported in Raj Kumar v. Union of India [1968 (3) SCR 857] is inappropriate to the facts of this case. In that case this Court merely emphasised the position that when a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment his service clearly stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate Authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the condition of the service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate Authority and that till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate Authority in consonance with the rules governing **-22-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** the acceptance, the public servant concerned had Locus Penitentiae but not thereafter. This judgment was the subject matter of consideration alongside the other relevant case law on the subject by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Union of India Etc. vs Gopal Chandra Misra and Others (AIR 1978 SC 694). A request for pre-mature retirement which required the acceptance of the competent or appropriate Authority will not be complete till accepted by such competent Authority and the request could definitely be withdrawn before it became so complete. It is all the more so in a case where the request for premature retirement was made to take effect from a future date as in this case. The majority of the Constitution Bench analysed and declared the position of law to be as under:” 15.1. The apex Court after referring to the relevant paragraph from _Gopal Chandra Misra_ case proceeded to consider the effect of the said principle to the case before it. Finally in paragraph no.8 it is held as follows: "8. So far as the case in hand is concerned, nothing in the form of any statutory rules or any provision of any Act has been brought to our notice which could be said to impede or deny this right of the appellants. On the other hand, not only the acceptance of the request by the Headquarters, the appropriate Authority was said to have been made only on 20.2.86, a day after the respondent **-23-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** withdrew his request for pre-mature retirement but even such acceptance, _**in this case, was to be effective from a future date namely 31.8.86. Consequently, it could not be legitimately contended by the appellants that there was any cessation of the relationship of master and servant between the Department and the respondent at any rate before 31.8.86. While that be the position inevitably the respondent had a right and was entitled to withdraw or revoke his request earlier made before it ever really and effectively became effective**_ . (emphasis added) 9. The reliance placed upon the so-called policy decision which obligated the respondent to furnish a certificate to the extent that he was fully aware of the fact that he cannot later seek for cancellation of the application once made for pre-mature retirement cannot, in our view, be destructive of the right of the respondent, in law, to withdraw his request for pre-mature retirement before it ever became operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with the Department. When the legal position is that much clear it would be futile for the appellants to base their rights on some policy decision of the Department or a mere certificate of the respondent being aware of a particular position which has no sanctity or basis in law to destroy such rights which otherwise inhered in him and available in law. No such deprivation of a substantive right of a person can be denied except based on any statutory provision or rule or regulation. **There being none brought to our notice in this case, the claim of the appellants** **-24-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **cannot be countenanced in our hands.** Even that apart, the reasoning of the High Court that the case of the respondent will not be covered by the type or nature of the mischief sought to be curbed by the so-called policy decision also cannot be said to suffer any conformity in law, to warrant our interference.” (emphasis added) 16. The petitioner drawing similarity between the circumstances in hand and the circumstances considered by the Apex Court in _Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal_[8] argues that as per Statutes of respondent/University, employee desirous to sever relationship of employer and employee serves three months’ notice of resignation; the employer has discretion either to waive notice or accept salary in lieu of notice or in genuine cases can reduce the period of notice and accept resignation. Once the resignation is accepted and rendered effective from a future date by the decision of respondent, the petitioner continues to be in service till relieved by respondent. The effect of binding precedents from _Gopal Chandra Misra's_ case is that the employee has a right to withdraw resignation 8 AIR 1989 SC 1083 **-25-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** ## before the relationship is severed. He refers to paragraph 6 in the above judgment which reads thus: “6. Much reliance was placed on the terms of the proviso to clause (2) of regulation 20 to justify the action of the bank in terminating the respondent's services earlier but we do not think that the proviso can be interpreted in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the bank. The resignation letter of the officer has to give at least three months' advance notice under the main part of the clause. What the proviso contemplates is that in a case where the employee desires that his resignation should be effective even before the expiry, of the period of three months or without notice being given by him, the bank may consider such a request and waive the period or requirement of notice if it considers it fit to do so. That question does not arise in the present case because the employee had not requested the bank to reduce the period of notice or to waive the requirement of notice. Dr. Anand Prakash seeks to interpret the proviso as empowering the bank, even without any request on the part of the employee, to reduce the period or waive the requirement of notice. In other words, he says the bank has power to accept the resignation with immediate effect even though the notice is only of a proposed future resignation. We do not think this contention can be accepted. As we have already mentioned, resignation is a voluntary act of an employee. He may choose to resign with immediate effect or with a notice of less than three months if the bank agrees to the same. He may also resign at a **-26-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** future date on the expiry, or beyond the period, of three months but for this no further consent of the bank is necessary. The acceptance of the argument of Dr. Ananad Prakash would mean that, even though an employee might express a desire to resign from a future date, the resignation can be accepted, even without his wishes, from an earlier date. _**This would not be the acceptance of a resignation in the terms in which it is offered. It amounts really to forcing a date of termination on the employee other than the one he is entitled to choose under the regulations. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the termination of service under clause (2) becomes effective at the instance of the employee and the services of the employee cannot be terminated by the employer under this clause**_ .” (emphasis added) 17. The respondent filed a very detailed counter affidavit adverting to the totality of circumstances of petitioner's stay in respondent/University viz., from the date of petitioner joining in service till the petitioner was relieved by the respondent. The counter affidavit adverts to a few ancillary and incidental circumstances to depict the overall lack of working attitude of the petitioner in University as Deputy Registrar. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, clarified that the decision of **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-27-** respondent/University either to accept Ext.P5 or refuse to consider the request in Ext.P9 dated 28.11.2018 is strictly based on relevant documents and rule position alone but not by referring to any incident appearing as a shadow of petitioner in a negative light in the University. Hence I am of the view that the circumstances referred to in the counter need not be adverted to for no issue arises in that behalf between parties. 18. Writ petition challenges, broadly stated, the mode and manner of consideration of Ext.P5, refusing to consider letter dated 28.11.2018 (Ext.P9) and decision dated 07.12.2018 (Ext.P11) as illegal arbitrary and amounts to refusing to exercise the discretion/jurisdiction conferred on the respondent. This Court to the extent of appreciating the reply of respondent in this behalf prefers to excerpt the paragraph in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent which reads thus: “20. The notice of resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the Competent Authority as per Statute 17(15) of the First Statutes of NIT framed under NIT Act 2007. Further the request **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-28-** of the petitioner to condone the notice period was also acceded by the respondent Institute. Besides the withdrawal request from the petitioner was considered in accordance with the Rules & Procedure laid down. The petitioner was duly communicated of all the decisions of Competent Authority of acceptance of the resignation by the Competent Authority & condonation of notice period (as requested by the petitioner vide Exhibit P5) vide Exhibit P10 and non-acceptance of his withdrawal request by the Competent Authority vide Exhibit P12 along with reason(s). Even after communicating Exhibit P10 & Exhibit P12 decisions of Competent Authority, the petitioner had not objected the above decisions. In fact the petitioner accepted the above decision and urged the respondent Institute to relieve him on 11.01.2019 (A.N.) and to issue certificate(s), which are only given at the time of relieving in consequent to the resignation vide Exhibit-R1(n), Exhibit-R1(q), Exhibit-R1(r), Exhibit-R1(s), Exhibit-R1(t). 21.This being the true fact and circumstances of the matter, all the allegations contrary to the same contained in the writ petition are not proper, correct or sustainable, lacking in truth and _bonafides_ , besides being baseless, erroneous and ill motivated. The writ petition itself is not maintainable.” 19. The petitioner prays for a writ of _certiorari_ and, as already noted, the record relating to the orders impugned in the writ petition are made available. To avoid meandering narration of **-29-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** circumstances, while adverting to the case of petitioner this Court chose to go by the record produced, therefore same yardstick is applied to the pleadings of respondent. 19.1 A writ of _certiorari_ in the sense a great corrective writ by which superior Courts i.e., Supreme Court and High Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over inferior Courts, Tribunals, _Boards, Authorities and Offices_ , exercising judicial and quasi-judicial function and by which their records and proceedings are brought under review with the sole object that all abuses of power may be corrected and they i.e., inferior courts, Tribunals, Boards, Authorities and Officers, may be held strictly to the power, discretion/jurisdiction vested in them and these judicial/quasijudicial authorities are further prevented from transcending the powers conferred on them. 20. Advocate Shyam Padman argues, by referring to series of applications/requests made by petitioner, to work on deputation in different Organisations, that the petitioner from the beginning is ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-30-** not interested in working at NIT Calicut. The number of applications sent by him demonstrates that the petitioner has been an unwilling employee to work at the University. Ext.P5 at best is the final expression of petitioner's intent to leave the service of University. The petitioner, upon reporting to job, was assigned Establishment division and person in the cadre of Deputy Registrar is expected to guide subordinates and assist higher ups in the Establishment Division. Despite difficulties, the requests of petitioner to go on deputation were forwarded to different organisations by respondent/University. To show the alleged deviation of rules by petitioner, in forwarding the application to other Organisations, he draws the attention of the Court specifically to the application independently sent by the petitioner to East Delhi Municipal Corporation to work on deputation. The requirement is, applications to so on deputation are routed through the employer and employer taking into consideration the Organisational needs, if the services of an employee can be spared, forwards the application ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-31-** to the Organisation where these services are utilised on deputation. Notwithstanding such deviation in sending applications the last of the applications sent by the petitioner was also forwarded by the respondent to East Delhi Municipal Corporation. But the petitioner, even before the request to work on deputation was accepted by East Delhi Municipal Corporation, tendered resignation in Ext.P5. According to learned Standing Counsel these circumstances though are peripheral, but do speak in volumes on the conduct of petitioner and secondly the objections/grounds now raised are nothing but convenient grounds designed, _ex post facto_ to the happenings in the matter. Referring to Ext.P5, he contends that through Ext.P5 the petitioner has expressed himself in more than what is required to understand that the petitioner is not interested in working in the University and intended to resign. The respondent/University merely gave acceptance to the intention of petitioner. In these circumstances, the discretionary writ relief is not available and the writ is liable to be dismissed _in limine_ . ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-32-** 20.1 Adv.Padman lays emphasis on the first sentence in Ext.P5 i.e., “I am not interested to work anymore in NIT Calicut.” The respondent, on 16.11.2018, with a view to understand the reasons which would have prompted the resignation, called upon the petitioner to inform the reasons for dissatisfaction resulting in tendering resignation. The petitioner through Ext.P5 has submitted the same letter of resignation with substantially same reasons and the letter was accepted by the competent authority on 22.11.2018. He, therefore, argues that the communication dated 28.11.2018 Ext.P9 sent by the petitioner is after the resignation has been accepted by the competent authority. There is no requirement that the acceptance of a decision to resign from the post needs to be immediately communicated to the employee by the employer. The employee desires to relinquish the right he has on the post by tendering resignation, once resignation is accepted, the employee thereafter cannot be allowed to withdraw the resignation letter already tendered and accepted. In other words, the acceptance on **-33-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** 22.11.2018 according to learned counsel gives quietus to all the options available to petitioner in this behalf. Consequently the request to withdraw the resignation letter Ext.P5 through Ext.P9 is unavailable and the respondent was justified in law and fact in rejecting the request of petitioner in Ext.P9. He further argues that the respondent, instead of waiving the notice period, granted time till 07.01.2019 to relieve from service and the petitioner was relieved on 11.01.2019. In other words, instead of three months’ notice period, the respondent has reduced notice period to two months. The petitioner applied for permission to stay in the guest house, enable him to vacate the quarter allotted to him by the University, produced No Objection Certificates, settled the account and left the Organisation. He specifically draws the attention of the Court to the date on which the present writ petition is filed, i.e., nearly after five months from the date on which the petitioner was relieved. It is argued that the resignation letter submitted is categorical and the intention of employee is very clear to resign to the post held by him. **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-34-** Secondly, the petitioner changed his mind after getting selected in East Delhi Municipal Corporation and sent letter dated 28.11.2018 requesting for withdrawing the notice of resignation. Petitioner intends to be an employee of NITC and work on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Withdrawal of resignation for these designed objects ought not to be encouraged by Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 21. Standing Counsel further argues that resignation becomes effective on the date on which it is accepted by the respondent and a subsequent withdrawal of resignation was ineffective even if acceptance of resignation, as in the case on hand on 22.11.2018, was not intimated to the petitioner. In support of the above submission he relies on judgment in _Rajkumar v. Union of India_[9] . Paragraph 6 is relied on, which reads thus: “.. **When a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation the termination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, and in the absence of** > 9 AIR 1969 SC 180. **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-35-** **any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation, is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter.** Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted. In the present case the resignation was accepted within a short time after it was received by the Government of India. Apparently the State of Rajasthan did not immediately implement the order and relieve, the appellant of his duties, but the appellant cannot profit by the delay in intimating acceptance or in relieving him of his duties. (emphasis added) 22. Petitioner relied on Ext.P15 Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personal, Public Grievance and Pensions, New Delhi for the limited purpose of pointing out the options or rights provided to an employee who tenders letter of resignation and what are the various stages at which the letter can be withdrawn. The petitioner as well as the respondent rely on paragraph no.3 in the Office Memorandum. It is **-36-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** ## useful to excerpt the said memorandum at this juncture: “A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. If a Government servant who had submitted a resignation, sends an intimation in writing to the appointing authority withdrawing his earlier letter of resignation before its acceptance by the appointing authority, the resignation will be deemed to have been automatically withdrawn and there is no question of accepting the resignation. In case, however, the resignation has been accepted by the appointing authority and the Government servant is to be relieved from a future date, if any request for withdrawing the resignation is made by the Government servant before he is actually relieved of his duties, the normal principle should be to allow the request of the Government servant to withdraw the resignation. If, however, the request for withdrawal is to be refused, the grounds for the rejection of the request should be duly recorded by the appointing authority and suitably intimated to the Government servant concerned." 23. Advocate Shyam Padman relies on the judgment reported in _North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar_[10] which considered the scope of applicability of extant Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988. According to him, _Vedpathi Dinesh_ 10 (2003) 5 SCC 455 **-37-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** _Kumar_ case is an authoritative decision for the proposition that even in cases where the resignation is accepted with immediate effect, the acceptance could not be communicated and in the interregnum resignation cannot be withdrawn before such acceptance is communicated to the Government servant concerned. He relies on case: the following paragraphs in _Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar's_ “18. It is an admitted fact that so far as the appellant-Organisation is concerned, there is no rule which requires the acceptance of the resignation to be communicated before the resignation could become effective. But the Division Bench in appeal has relied upon consolidated guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of India vide letter of February 11, 1988 dealing with the subject of acceptance and withdrawal of resignation. We see that these guidelines state that in the case of a resignation which has been accepted by the appointing authority with effect from a future date and if in the meantime the concerned Government servant withdraws his resignation before he is actually relieved of his duties, the normal principle should be to allow the request of the Government servant to withdraw the resignation. In these guidelines, we do not see any requirement which states that even in cases where the resignation is accepted with immediate effect, the same can be withdrawn before such acceptance is communicated to the Government servant concerned. On the contrary, in our opinion, **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-38-** these guidelines also indicate that the resignation takes effect the moment the same is accepted. (emphasis added) ## 24. In _Chand Mal Chayal v. State of Rajasthan_[11] it is observed that: “By now it is well settled principle of law that an incumbent is entitled to withdraw his resignation before the acceptance. Once his resignation is accepted there is no jural relationship between the employee and the employer and the employee cannot claim for withdrawal of the resignation nor reinstatement in the post.” 25. The latest judgment of the Supreme Court in _BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma_[12] the Supreme Court has considered the difference or distinction between various expressions such as ‘superannuation’, ‘voluntary retirement’, ‘compulsory retirement’ and ‘resignation’. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “The Court in Shree Lal Meena II elucidated the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement in the following terms: [RBI v Cecil Dennis Solomon (2004) 9 SCC 461]. In service jurisprudence, the expressions “superannuation”, “voluntary retirement”, > 11 (2006) 10 SCC 258 12 AIR 2020 SC 76 **-39-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** “compulsory retirement” and “resignation” convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time, but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering the prescribed period of qualifying service. Another fundamental distinction is that in case of the former, normally retiral benefits are denied but in case of the latter, the same is not denied. In case of the former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in the case of the latter, permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and becomes effective on acceptance by the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by express provisions to the contrary. The above observations highlighted the material distinction between the concept of resignation and voluntary retirement.” ## 26. Advocate Shyam Padman lastly referred to the judgment reported in _Air India Express Limited v. Capt.Gurudarshan Kaur Sandhu_[13] paragraph 11 which reads thus: “11. It is thus well settled that normally, until the resignation becomes effective, it is open to an employee to withdraw his resignation. When would the resignation become effective may 13 2019 11 Scale 310 **-40-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** depend upon the governing service regulations and/or the terms and conditions of the office/post. As stated in paragraphs 41 and 50 in Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301, “ **in the absence of anything to the contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office/post” or “in the absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘prospective resignation’ can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective”.** Further, as laid down in Balram Gupta 1987 Suppl SCC 228, “If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his job, that would be another matter.” 27. Therefore, he finally concludes that the resignation submitted by petitioner has been accepted by Ext.P8 dated 22.11.2018 made by the Director. The reasons for refusing to accept Ext.P.9, have been adverted to specifically in the communication dated 07.12.2018. Briefly stated, to the case on hand, whether a square or a circle is applicable as a rule, the applicable rule or procedure has been applied to the case of petitioner by the respondent, no exception can be taken to the decision making process or the impugned decision and therefore, he prays for **-41-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** dismissing the writ petition. 28. I have taken note of the submissions made by the petitioner and Advocate Shyam Padman. I have perused the original file made available by the respondent. The following points are framed for consideration: (i) Whether the orders impugned in the writ petition Ext.P10 dated 04.12.2018, Ext.P12 dated 07.1.2019 and Ext.P13 dated 11.01.2019 are legal, valid and are made within the jurisdiction conferred on the respondent? (ii) Whether the action of respondent in accepting Exts.P5 dated 08.11.2018 and P8 dated 22.11.2018, overlooking the request in Ext.P9 dated 28.11.2018 and Ext.P11 dated 07.12.2018, are legal and according to the law laid down by the Apex Court? (iii) What is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to? 29. In service jurisprudence, resignation means severance of relationship between employee and employer, and cessation of relationship is brought forward by employee. Employee desires to **-42-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** sever his relationship with the employer without any riders, and then it amounts to resignation. But if his intention is not to sever his relation immediately but from a prospective date and subject to certain conditions, then the resignation could become effective on fulfilment of those conditions and from a prospective date, subject acceptance by the employer. Resignation is an act of employee giving up an office. In other words, resignation is characteristically a voluntary surrender of a position by the one resigning, made freely and not under duress and the word is defined generally as meaning the act of resigning or giving up, a claim, possession or position. Resignation, to constitute complete and operative resignation, the intention to give up or relinquish the office must be categorical and a concomitant act of relinquishment. The act of relinquishment of office particularly through resignation may be a unilateral or bilateral character depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing the office. Offer of resignation to be effective ought to be unconditional and categorical. An **-43-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** employee is entitled to serve notice of resignation on the employer in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations relinquishing his right to office. Normally Rules prescribe notice period or salary in lieu of notice period etc. Resignation, in a few cases, is a unilateral act and in a few others depending on the service Rules a bilateral act. The acceptance of resignation is communicated to the employee. 30. The precedents noted above lay down that an employee is entitled to withdraw the resignation before the resignation is accepted, in a few other cases before the acceptance of resignation is communicated and in exceptional cases before the relationship is severed between the employer and the employee. The reported judgments note that in the case on hand, it is admitted position from the First Statutes of respondent/University that an employee working in respondent/University either by giving three months’ notice or paying salary in lieu of three months’ notice can resign to the post the employee is holding, on accepting the resignation by ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-44-** the University the relationship comes to end. The Rule enables the respondent to waive notice period either partly or fully in given cases. 31. Now let me examine, in the background of what is stated in the preceding paras, the happenings/circumstances in the present case. Petitioner under Ext.P5 dated 08.11.2018 has forwarded to the respondent/University which is captioned as ‘notice of resignation'. This service of notice is purportedly sent in compliance with the requirement of Statute no.30 of NIT. Statute 30 deals with resignation and reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of these first Statues, a member of the staff of Institute may resign: (i) If he is a permanent employee only after giving three months’ notice in writing to his appointing authority, or by paying three months’ salary in lieu thereof; and (ii) If he is not a permanent employee, only after giving one month's notice in writing to the appointing authority or by paying one month's salary in lieu thereof: **Provided that such resignation shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority.”** **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-45-** 32. The dispute between the parties starts with Ext.P5 and substantial arguments have been put forward by both the sides on the scope/purpose etc of Ext.P5. A few core issues are appreciated or taken note of by this court from the record produced for inspection. Letter dated 08.11.2018 (Ext.P5) is excerpted together with the earliest noting by the Registrar of the respondent University on the same page of Letter dated 08.11.2018. “Kindly refer to your offer letter vide No. P1/12331/RNTS/469/2016 dated 04.02.2017 and appointment letter dated 07.02.2017 issued under your signature. I am not interested to work anymore in NITC, therefore **I tender my resignation, provided leave shall be granted to withdraw before the date of relieving.** **It is also requested to the competent authority to condone the period of notice.** Thanking you with anticipation. xxx xxx xxx ## _Note_ _As per the NIT Statute, the permanent employee of the Institute may resign after giving 3 months’ notice._ _As per Swamy’s –handbook on resignation, it should be clear and unconditional, states the clause of proving leave to withdraw is not in_ **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-46-** _order. He may be relieved on suitable date without any conditions.”_ _Sd xxx_ 33. The case of petitioner is that, at the first instance, notice of resignation dated 08.11.2018 was submitted to the Registrar of respondent/University. The notice of resignation dated 08.11.2018 has been returned to petitioner through Ext.P25 movement register maintained by the respondent/University. The Registrar called upon the petitioner to furnish the reasons for his unhappiness i.e., about the Institute. For appreciating the text and tenor of the notice served on 08.11.2018 and the return or reply given by the respondent, the Court finds it necessary and useful to excerpt them at this stage of consideration: “To The Director, NIT, Calicut. Date: 08.11.2018 Subject: **Notice of resignation under Statute No. 30 of NIT** Hon’ble Sir, Kindly refer to your offer letter vide No. P1/12331/RNTS/469/2016 dated 04.02.2017 and appointment letter dated 07.02.2017 issued under your signature. I am not happy to work anymore in NITC, therefore I tender my **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-47-** resignation provided leave shall be granted to withdraw if I got selected under deputation/contract/tenure/direct/etc. basis in any department/organisation before the date of relieving. Competent authority may condone the period of notice, if required. Thanking you with anticipation. xxx xxx xxx _Note_ _Shri Bhagat_ _As per your submission you have written that you are not happy to work in NITC anymore. For further processing the case you have to furnish the detailed reason for your unhappiness in this Institute.”_ 34. As already noted on 16.11.2018 the file was moved for taking approval of Director on the transfer arrangement made by the Registrar of respondent/University. The file moved by the Registrar to the Director for approval the following endorsement has been made: “As per the NIT statutes, the permanent employee of the institute may resign after giving 3 months' notice. As per Swamy's hand-book on resignation, it should be clear and unconditional; stating the clause of provided leave to withdraw is not in order. He may be relieved on suitable date without any conditions.” ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-48-** 35. Page no.349 of the record produced by the respondent deals with report of transfer of charge prepared by the respondent. Petitioner was the relieved officer and one S.Sreetha is the relieving officer. On page 350 of the file for approval of the Director and the approvals given by the Director thereon have bearing on the acceptance of resignation and the approved effective date of severance between parties, and read thus:- “Shri Bharat Singh Rawat, Deputy Registrar (Establishment) has submitted the notice for resignation vide his letter dated 08.11.2018. As per the NIT statutes, the permanent employee of the Institute may resign after giving three month's notice in writing to his appointing authority, or by paying three months salary in lieu thereof. In view of the above and for the smooth functioning of Establishment Section, the charge of Deputy Registrar (Establishment) and CPIO shall be given to Assistant Registrar (Establishment). Shri. Bharat Singh Rawat shall be appointed as Deputy Registrar (Administration) till the time of his relieving from the Institute and the duties & responsibilities of the Deputy Registrar (Administration) will be issued subsequently.” xxx xxx xxx ## _**Registrar**_ ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-49-** - _**1) In relation to ‘A’ in a trade of Dy.Reg.(Est) I/C she will lose the Establishment Section.**_ ## _**Direct for approval Pl.**_ - _**2) Resignation of Sri Rawat is accepted. He may be relieved after three months’ notice period or as in ‘B’.**_ - _**3) Proposal of assigning new duties of Sri Rawat is approved**_ ” 36. On 28.11.2018 Ext.P9 the petitioner, referring to the notice of resignation dated 08.11.2018, requested to withdraw the notice of resignation in the wake of his selection to work on deputation in East Delhi Municipal Corporation. To the email dated 28.11.2018 the petitioner has attached the letter requesting withdrawal of notice of resignation dated 08.11.2018. 37. Subject file was again moved for further orders of the Director on the intimation dated 20.11.2018 received from East Delhi Municipal Corporation proposing to take petitioner on deputation; the following endorsement is recorded by the respondent/University: “Shri.Bharat Singh Rawat, former Deputy Registrar (Establishment) and presently working as Deputy Registrar (Administration) of this **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-50-** Institute has tendered his resignation on 8[th] November 2018 and has requested to relieve him from the duties of this Institute vide his letter dated 8/11/2018. The competent authority has approved his resignation on 22/11/2018.Hence a relieving order to relieve him in the AN of 11 January 2019 kept below may please approved. Further, the Administrative Officer, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Ground Floor, Udyog Sadan industrial Area, Patparganj Delhi, vide their letter dated 20/11/2018 has informed that Shri.Bharat Singh Rawat has been selected as Additional Deputy Commissioner/Joint Assessor & Collector in their institution on deputation basis. Hence an intimation letter regarding his resignation and relieving date from this Institute, kept below may also be approved.” ## 38. The above approval resulted in Office Order dated 04.12.2018, which reads thus: “Shri. Bharat Singh Rawat, Deputy Registrar (Establishment) has tendered his resignation on 08 November 2018 and requested to relieve him from the duties of this Institute vide his letter dated 08/11/2018. The competent authority has approved his resignation on 22/11/2018. Accordingly, Shri. Bharat Singh Rawat would be relieved from the services of this institute with effect from the A.N. of 11[th] January 2019. **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-51-** 39. _Certiorari_ is brought before a superior Court by an aggrieved party for review of the records and proceedings of the subordinate Court, inferior Tribunal or Office authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, so that the validity of the proceedings may be determined by the superior court, excesses of jurisdiction restrained and apparent errors of law and fact if any, are corrected. The Superior Court takes note of the difference between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction. There is always a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The respondent has jurisdiction to act under Statute 30 and February 1988 Circular. But if it is irregularly exercised, the defect goes to the root of the matter and the error if any in exercising the jurisdiction can be remedied in appeal or revision then there is no such remedy or is not availed of, the decision is final. In such circumstances, this Court in its jurisdiction under writ of _certiorari_ corrects the patent errors of fact in the record resulting in error of law. This Court keeps in **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-52-** perspective that while entertaining prayer for writ of _certiorari_ , this Court ought not to convert itself into a court of appeal, or exercise appellate jurisdiction. This Court cannot review, or re-appreciate the totality of circumstances upon which the respondent has placed its decision. Likewise, this Court cannot also substitute its own findings, for the findings recorded by the Director of University supposedly based on the record before him. In other words, the jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is exercised through _certiorari_ on two points, firstly, the area of jurisdiction of inferior Tribunal and the qualification or conditions of its exercise by such Tribunal; and secondly, the observance of law, applicable circulars, rules in the course of exercise of its jurisdiction by the Tribunal or authority. This Court, stated briefly, is concerned with the decision making process of the respondent on the request of petitioner in Ext.P5 and Ext.P9 dated 29.11.2018 withdrawing the request of resignation. ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-53-** 40. The contours of judicial review in writ of certiorari, without burdening this judgment with citations, have been noted above. Now it is the stage to take up for examination the relevant exhibits for consideration. In the preceding paragraphs the documents/exhibits from the record are excerpted. These documents are though excerpted, this Court firstly does not propose to retrace the events either as original authority or appellate authority, if remedy of appeal is provided. But these are adverted to for merely appreciating whether the decisions of respondent to accept resignation on one hand and refuse the request of petitioner to withdraw the resignation letter on another hand, is valid or vitiated by patent error of fact leading to errors of law. 41. Let me first examine the notice of resignation Ext.P5 dated 08.11.2018 and Ext.P26 dated 08.11.2018 served by the petitioner. , Exts.P5 / P26, notice of resignation states thus: (a) Petitioner is not happy to work anymore in NITC. (b) Petitioner tenders resignation provided leave shall be granted **-54-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** to withdraw i.e., resignation if petitioner is selected on deputation/contract/tenure/direct etc. (c) in any department/organisation before the relieving date. 42. The Registrar of respondent University did not process the request in Ext.P26 and returned the notice of resignation with the following reply: “Shri Bhagat As per your submission you have written that you are not happy to work in NITC anymore. For further processing the case you have to furnish the detailed reason for your unhappiness in this Institute.” i.e., (a) notice of resignation states that petitioner is unhappy to work in NITC. (b) To process the resignation request of petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the reason for unhappiness to continue to work in respondent university. Therefore, the first notice of resignation was not processed and returned to petitioner. 43. Thereafter, petitioner through Ext.P5 dated 08.11.2018 served notice of resignation on respondent. To appreciate the ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-55-** change in expression between Ext.P26 (i.e., first notice of resignation) and Ext.P5 the same is reproduced hereunder: “Kindly refer to your offer letter vide No. P1/12331/RNTS/469/2016 dated 04.02.2017 and appointment letter dated 07.02.2017 issued under your signature. I am not interested to work anymore in NITC, therefore I tender my resignation, provided leave shall be granted to withdraw before the date of relieving. It is also requested to the competent authority to condone the period of notice. Thanking you with anticipation.” The petitioner deleted the word ‘unhappy’ employed in Ext.P26 and substituted with ‘not interested’ and has reserved the right to . withdraw i.e., notice of resignation, _before the date of relieving_ ## 44. The Registrar of respondent on Ext.P.5 noted as follows: “As per the NIT statutes, the permanent employee of the institute may resign after giving 3 months' notice. As per Swamy's hand-book on resignation, it should be clear and unconditional; stating the clause of provided leave to withdraw is not in order. He may be relieved on suitable date without any **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-56-** conditions.” 45. The next stage in the narration is that on 16.11.2018 petitioner was transferred and relieved from Establishment Department. {See recorded report of Transfer of charge. See page 349 of the record produced by respondent}. On the succeeding page the file note recommendation and the approval of Director dated 22/11/2018 are noted. The Director on 22/11/2018, accepted the resignation tendered in Ext.P5 and permitted to relieve petitioner after three months' notice period is over or as in 'B' i.e., by receiving three months' salary instead of notice period. Therefore, the relieving date after completion of notice period, ought to be after three months from 08.11.2018, falls on or after 07.02.2019. The file produced by respondent refers to a note/order dated 04.12.2018 to relieve petitioner in the A.N. of 11.01.2019. The petitioner was relieved on 11.01.2019. Therefore relieving petitioner on 11.01.2019 begs the question _viz_ . whether the relieving has been as per the office order dated 22.11.2018 or office order dated 04.12.2018? The **-57-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** acceptance of offer of resignation on 22.11.2018 is not implemented in the manner in which it is accepted. Similarly 04.12.2018 refers to relieving petitioner on 11.01.2019 and the decision taken on 04.12.2018 is not approved by the competent authority while accepting the resignation. The sum and substance is that the earlier order allegedly accepting resignation is not implemented and what is implemented is not backed by an order from the competent authority. These contradictions explain the decision making process on the request of petitioner for resigning from the post. This apparent contradiction gains importance to examine whether the relieving of petitioner as per the order dated 22.11.2018sss was accepting resignation or not. The error apparent from the record is that the approval date 22.11.2018 stipulates three months’ relieving period, and no separate order enabling relieving petitioner on 11.01.2019 is shown to the Court from the record. This opinion of the Court has bearing on appreciating the prospective acceptance of resignation by respondent. **-58-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** 46. It is argued by petitioner that a combined reading of Statute No.30 read with Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988, the cessation of relationship is not unilateral i.e., exclusively at the volition of employee, but the severance of relationship is brought about by the University with the acceptance of resignation and communication to employee. By relying on the dictum of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, the employee has locus to withdraw the resignation tendered, at any time before the petitioner is actually relieved from service. Referring to the important dates, he argues that request for withdrawing the notice of resignation vide Ext.P9 was e-mailed much ahead of communication of acceptance of resignation, request ought to have been considered in normal or routine manner, because except for the matrimonial dispute noticed by respondent, no other adverse remark is noted in the short stay of petitioner in respondent/University. In other words, not considering a valid and timely request made for withdrawing resignation should have been ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-59-** favourably considered. The failure of respondents in doing so resulted in orders impugned in the writ petition and are oblivious to the binding precedents of apex Court. 47. _Per contra_ , the respondent argues that Rules provide for resignation by an employee from the service of University. The resignation is more a voluntary act and unilateral decision of employee. The resignation once accepted in accordance with Section 30 of First Statute, such acceptance is sufficient and immediate communication is not necessary in every case, delay in communication does not clothe petitioner with a right to withdraw the resignation. In the case on hand, Ext.P9 dated 28.11.2018 requesting to withdraw Ext.P5 is after Ext.P8 dated 22.11.2018. The refusal to entertain the request for withdrawing the notice of resignation is completely legal and valid. The respondent relies on _Rajkumar_ and _Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar_ case as an answer to the contention that withdrawal even if earlier to the communication of acceptance in Ext.P11, still relieving petitioner confers no right; ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-60-** February11, 1988 Guidelines indicate that the resignation takes effect the moment the same is accepted. 48. A Five Judge Bench of Supreme Court in _**Gopal Chandra Misra**_ **case in paragraph 51** held that in the absence of legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective and resignation becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the respondent. The apex Court further held that this general rule is applicable to Constitutional Functionaries and Government Servants. The respondent in the instant circumstances accepts resignation prospectively and can it be simultaneously allowed to argue that the option of withdrawing resignation is not available to petitioner. In the light of legal case principle laid down by Supreme Court in _Gopal Chandra Misra_ etc., this Court holds that the petitioner has a right to withdrawal of resignation before the relationship of master and servant is severed. As already noted, the petitioner on 28.11.2018 has withdrawn the **-61-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** resignation i.e., much before 04.12.2018 the date of communication of decision dated 22.11.2018,. Juxtaposing the circumstances of the case in hand let us without reference to whether Ext.P8 dated 22.11.2018 is communicated or not, examine whether the petitioner is well within his locus to send Ext.P9 withdrawal letter or not and the rejection of request is justified in law. 49. The petitioner through Ext.P5 notice of resignation reserved right to withdraw the resignation before it is given effect and requested for waiving notice period. The notings from the record are reproduced supra. The notings read that the respondent was unwilling to accept the condition in Ext. P5 i.e., withdraw resignation if petitioner secures employment on deputation in Government etc., and file was moved to accept the resignation without conditions. The competent authority i.e., Director approved thus: “Registrar 1) In relation to ‘A’ instead of Dy.Reg.(Est) I/C she will look after the Establishment Section. **-62-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** ## **Direct for approval Pl.,** 2) Resignation of Sri Rawat is accepted. He may be relieved after three months’ notice period or as in ‘B’. 3) Proposal of assigning new duties of Sri Rawat is approved” 50. Director accepted notice of resignation in Ext.P5 prospectively after completion of notice period i.e., three months and falls on 07.02.2019. Ext.P10 dated 04.12.2018 ordered relieving petitioner in A.N. of 11.01.2019. Firstly from applicable sections in First Statute this Court opines that the severance of relationship is bilateral i.e., employee tenders resignation and University accepts the resignation. The respondent by its order/communications made resignation effective prospectively. Having made the cessation of relationship prospective, whether the respondent is legally justified in denying the right to withdraw Ext.P5. 50.1 Ext.P15 is a Guideline issued by Central Government and respondent does not dispute its applicability to NIT(C). Stated in nutshell Ext.P15 in para 3 lays down that: (i) Resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and Government Servant relieved of **-63-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** his duties, (ii) if a request for withdrawal of resignation is made before the resignation is accepted, then without further orders the resignation is withdrawn automatically, (iii) if request for withdrawing the resignation is made after it is accepted and before the Government Servant is relieved of his duties, normal principle is to allow the request to withdraw the resignation, (iv) if the request for withdrawing is refused, the reasons are recorded and intimated to Government Servant. Respondent argues that by communicating Ext.P12 dated 07.01.2019, the respondent complied with guideline (iv) and no exception to the exercise of discretion can be taken. After noticing from record that a few recognised rights are available to a Government Servant/petitioner and these are denied by communicating reply dated 04.12.2019. Therefore the _ex post facto_ decision through Ext.P12, is not going to cure the illegalities occasioned in decision making process between 22.11.2018 and 04.12.2018. The apex Court in _Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar's_ case noted that guidelines in Ext.P15 provide for accepting the request for **-64-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** withdrawing the resignation are followed as is possible. 51. It is next contended by respondent that having regard to the judgment in _Rajkumar_ case, the acceptance of resignation by the Director on 22.11.2018 need not be immediately communicated to petitioner to constitute due acceptance of resignation. In other words, communication of acceptance of resignation is not immediately necessary and once resignation is accepted by competent authority the request of resignation comes into operation. In other words, communication of acceptance of resignation is not necessary and once it is accepted by competent authority resignation comes into operation, in the interregnum right to withdraw is not available. The argument ignores the binding precedent of the Supreme court from _Gopal Chandra Mishra_ case and the subsequent decisions on the principle of _locus poenitentiae_ . Communication of decision accepting notice of resignation, whether necessary or optional, depends on the rules governing the resignation from employment and whether the ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-65-** severance is unilateral or bilateral. Statute 30 of First Statutes provides that a permanent employee is given option to resign after giving three months’ notice in writing to appointing authority or by paying three months’ salary in lieu of notice period. Proviso states that the resignation _shall be effective on the date on which the_ . _resignation is accepted by the competent authority_ Combined reading of Statute 30(1) and proviso, this Court is of the view that an employee of University has right to serve notice of resignation, but the resignation is effective on acceptance by the competent authority. Therefore, without firstly serving the acceptance it cannot be assumed that the relationship of employee and employer is severed and the employee can walk out of employment obligation without the consent of employer/University. To constitute perfect working of Statute 30, this Court opines that communication of acceptance of request of resignation is necessary and till the communication of acceptance is sent, the petitioner is entitled in law as declared by Supreme Court to withdraw the letter of resignation. The necessity **-66-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** of communication of acceptance is considered by this Court from the preponderance of judicial view post _Gopal Chandra Misra_ case and also an uncommunicated decision as is well settled do not affect rights of an employee who has tendered resignation. Right to withdrawal of resignation is considered as a substantive right and denial of the right on the ground that acceptance is anterior in point of time to Ext.P9 is untenable. 52. It is further argued by petitioner that Ext.P26 was returned to him, pointing out objections on the tone and tenor of content in Ext.P26. Ext.P5 except for a few minor changes contains the same sentences as are stated in Ext.P26. The respondent has option to waive the notice period requested for in Ext.P5 or payment in lieu of notice period. That would have resulted in immediate cessation of relationship. Instead, respondent accepts notice of resignation prospectively. By accepting resignation prospectively, the respondent reasonably cannot deny to petitioner the right of withdrawal reserved in this behalf by petitioner. This **-67-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** argument _prima facie_ appears to this Court as correct and tenable. Inasmuch as, if Ext.P5 is treated as a resignation letter, the respondent cannot accept one portion and omit to give effect to another portion in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 in its entirety, if is treated as notice of resignation, which was accepted through Ext.P8, to be effective from 08.02.2019. The right to withdraw resignation is reserved by petitioner independent of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The respondent after noticing that Ext.P5 is conditional in more than one sense, yet processed the request of petitioner and accepted the resignation prospectively. Ext.P5 ought to be applied uniformly by both sides. It is appropriate to refer to Ext.P24 which refers to more than one date of relieving the petitioner from the service of respondent. In the final analysis it is held that the First Statute 30 provides for resignation of employee from the service of respondent university. The employee is required to give three months’ notice or pay in lieu of notice. The severance of relationship comes into effect from the date of actual severance ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-68-** of employee and employer relationship. Therefore the case on hand is bilateral and the respondent accepted the resignation prospectively. The petitioner before communication of acceptance of resignation through Ext.P9 has withdrawn his request for resignation made in Ext.P5. Even otherwise as per the ratio of Apex court in the decisions referred to above the petitioner can withdraw resignation before the relationship comes to an end. The petitioner has made request for withdrawing and request to withdraw was turned down contrary to the legal principles laid down by the Apex court. The respondent having decided to process conditional resignation could not have denied the right reserved in Ext.P5 by petitioner to withdraw notice of resignation in the meantime. It is apt and also warranted in the circumstances of the cases that to give full expression to the legal principles laid down by the Apex court from _Gopal Chandra Mishra_ ; _Air India Express Ltd_ ; etc, it is held that having allowed severance of relationship prospectively and denying right of an employee to withdraw the notice of resignation is illegal. ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-69-** The decision taken by the respondent impugned in the writ petition hence is unsustainable in law and fact. 53. For the above reasons, this Court is satisfied that case is made out issuing of writ of _certiorari_ . Before concluding the judgment, yet another aspect canvassed by petitioner viz. for grant of back wages etc., needs to be considered. Petitioner by way of consequential relief claims continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. He relies on the judgment reported in _Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya_[14] . After perusing the ratio laid therein and noticing the singular circumstances of the case on hand this Court is not persuaded to apply the said ratio to the case on hand. The writ Court is entitled to exercise its discretion commensurate to the conclusions recorded in the judgment, while granting consequential benefits. 54. The petitioner on 08.02.2017 joined service of respondent/University. The petitioner was relieved from service in A.N. of 11.01.2019. On 23.05.2019 the writ petition is filed. 14 (2013) 10 SCC 324 **-70-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** Petitioner presses for continuity of service and payment of back wages from 11.01.2019 till the date of reinstatement. Firstly a prayer for every consequential relief neither is granted as a matter of course, nor flatly refused. The Court exercises discretion and moulds the consequential reliefs. The petitioner has taken more than four months to file the writ petition. After weighing materials on record and the claim of individual for backwages etc., on one hand and interest of Institution on the other hand, this Court is convinced that respondent shall not be burdened with payment of backwages from 11.01.2019 till reinstatement of petitioner. After balancing both the claims, the prayer for notional continuity of service for the break period from 11.01.2019 is granted this Court and holds that the petitioner is not entitled for salary for the break period i.e., between 11.01.2019 till reinstatement. The petitioner is given liberty to redeposit the amount received from respondent while relieving from service, file proof of readiness to deposit the amount and request to respondent for issuing orders of ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-71-** reinstatement. 55. The writ petition stands ordered as follows: - (A) Orders in Ext.P10 dated 04.12.2018, Ext.P12 dated 07.01.2019 and Ext.P13 dated 11.01.2019 are quashed as illegal, contrary to the jurisdiction vested in respondent and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. - (B) That refusing to accept the request made in Ext. P9 dated 28.11.2018 is illegal. Petitioner is entitled to withdraw the notice of resignation dated 08.11.2018 before communication of acceptance is received from respondent. - (C) The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with notional continuity of service and without back wages. - (D) The petitioner if is on probation, the respondent is entitled to extend the period of probation as per applicable rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj **-72-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LOCAL MALAYALAM NEWSPAPER CLIP AND ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 29.5.2018 (RELEVANT PAGES). - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REFERRAL TO KMCT MEDICAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT BY NITC HEALTH CENTRE DATED 6.6.2018. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PRESCRIPTION OF PSYCHIATRY TREATMENT OF PETITIONER & WIFE VIDE O.P.NO.102447 DATED 7.6.2018. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER ON DEPUTATION TO EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY NITC DATED 12.10.2018 & CLAUSE 33 OF NIT FIRST STATUE. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CONDITIONAL & INVOLUNTARY NOTICE OF RESIGNATION UNDER STATUTE NO.30 OF NIT FIRST STATUE DATED 8.11.2018. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CLAUSE 30 OF NIT FIRST STATUTE. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF OFFER LETTER FOR SELECTION IN EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED 20.11.2018. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTING SHOWING APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF RESIGNATION BY INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 22.11.2018. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF RESIGNATION DATED 28.11.2018. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE OF RESIGNATION BY INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 4.12.2018. - EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF **-73-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** RESIGNATION DATED 7.12.2018 (GENTLE REMINDER). - EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REFUSAL TO WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF RESIGNATION BY AUTHORITY DATED 7.1.2019. - EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER DATED 11.1.2019. - EXHIBIT P14 - TRUE COPY OF FR-49, RULE 12 OF CCS(CCA) RULES, 1965 AND OM NO.7/14/61-ESTS. (A) DATED 24.1.1963, WITH TYPED LEGIBLE COPY. - EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF DOPT OM NO.28034/25/87-ESTT (A) DATED 11.2.1988. - EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF SWAMY'S ESTABLISHMENT & ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 47 RELATED TO RESIGNATION (RELEVANT PAGE). - EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF DR.PRAVEEN NAGARAJAN, REQUEST OF RELIEVING AND WITHDRAWAL OF RELIEVING REQUEST & APPROVAL DATED 11.5.18. - EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF C1 17(8) OF NIT FIRST STATUE SHOWING APPOINTMENT POWER OF DIRECTOR, NIT (RELEVANT PAGES). - EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PETITIONER AS PER RELEVANT CLAUSE 23(5) (D) OF NIT FIRST STATUES, 2009. - EXHIBIT P20 - TRUE COPY OF SECTION 24(A) OF NIT (AMENDMENT), ACT, 2012 & C1.23 (10) NIT FIRST STATUTES SHOWING APPOINTMENT POWER OF BOARD OF GOVERNANCE (BOG), NIT (RELEVANT PAGES). - EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF NITC SHOWING NOTHING ADVERSE ON RECORD AGAINST PETITIONER DATED 21.2.2019. - EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF COURT ORDER SHOWING MAINTENANCE PAYMENT TO WIFE DATED 16.3.2019. - EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN **-74-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** PETITIONER'S WIFE AND NITC AND DEMAND OF PETITIONER'S SALARY BY WIFE DATED 12.10.2018. - EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONING FOUR DIFFERENT DATES OF RELIEVING VIZ., 8.2.2019, 11.1.2018, 11.1.2019 & 11.12.2018, SHOWS CONFUSION IN NITC OVER RULES & APPLICABLE POSITION ABOUT RELIEVING. - EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS EXCHANGED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WHICH IS MAINTAINED AT RESPONDENT'S OFFICE - EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF EARLIER RETURNED 'NOTICE OF RESIGNATION' DATED 8/11/2018 SUBMITTED ON 9/11/2018 AND RETURNED BACK ON 15/11/2018 - EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER ORDER OF MR.GEJO.C.V., DEPUTY REGISTRAR DATED 26/7/2019 - EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF APPROVED STRENGTH AND PRSENT STRENGTH OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR IN RESPONDENT INSTITUTE - EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 16 OF NIT ACT, 2007, SHOWING DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSON - EXHIBIT P30 - TRUE COPY OF MHRD NOTIFICATION DATED 7/8/2014 AND 9/10/2014 RELATED TO OFFICERS PERFORMING CURRENT DUTIES OF A POST - EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF BOG DECISION ON RESIGNATION TENDERED BY A DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR - EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF 46TH AND 47TH BOG DECISIONS SHOWING THAT RESIGNATION OF PETITIONER WAS NEVER REFERRED TO BOG I.E., APPOINTING AUTHORITY - EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED DATED 16.06.2019 RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL OF RESPONDENT FOR SEEKING TIME TO FILE REJOINDER. **-75-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** - EXHIBIT P34 - TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWING LOAN/MONEY BORROWED. - EXHIBIT P35 - TRUE COPY OF REMINDER SMS RECEIVED FOR PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEE FROM SCHOOL OF PETITIONERS CHILDREN. - EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER TO RELEASE TERMINAL BENEFITS DUE TO PETITIONER/APPLICANT. - EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL WITH ATTACHMENT DATED 20/6/2018 SENT TO RESPONDENT, SUBMITTING THAT MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE NOT PART OF DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY - EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF NIT STATUE SHOWING AND FUNCTION OF THE BOG, RELEVANT PAGES - EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF 49TH BOG MINUTES HELD ON 5/7/2019 APPROVING THE RESIGNATION OF - DR.T.RAGHUNADHAN, DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ACADEMIC) UNDER VRS SCHEME W.E.F.1ST AUGUST 2019 (F/N) - EXHIBIT P40 WORK CONDUCT APPRECIATION BY PAST AND PRESENT OFFICE BEARER E.G., EX-BOARD MEMBER OF REC/NITC, EX-NIT DIRECTOR, SENIOR MOST DEAN OF NITC. - EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE SHOWING SCHOOL FEES DUES OF TWO CHILDREN, SINCE01/4/2019, PROVING FINANCIAL CRUNCH. - EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWING TRAVELLING TICKETS MONEY AND LOAN PAID BY ONE OF THE MONEY-LENDER - EXHIBIT P43 TRUE COPY OF KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 1/3/2017 IN WPC 4079/2015 - EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 5/4/2016 IN WPC NO. 9624/2016 **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-76-** EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF 31ST BOG MINUTES HELD ON 2/5/2016 EXHIBIT P46 TRUE COPY OF SALARY PAYMENT DETAILS UPTO 11/01/2019 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(A) TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.NITC/8-1/2017-RO DATED 16.11.2018 R1(C) TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER OF CHARGE DATED 16.11.2018 R1(D) TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 26.11.2018 RECEIVED FROM THE PETITIONER R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NIT STATUTES COVERING THE STATUTE 17(13) TO 17(16) R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.DO/BOG/2011/251 DATED 10.11.2017 R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATIONS DATED 03.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2018 RECEIVED FROM THE PETITIONER REQUESTING TO RELIEVE HIM TO JOIN EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION R1(I) TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.12.2018 R1(J) TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 26.12.2018 AND LEAVE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER R1(K) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 R1(L) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 26.12.2018 R1(M) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.P3/13691/2017 DATED 26.12.2018 R1(N) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.01.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER R1(O) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 07.01.2019 REGARDING THE REGULARIZATION OF LEAVE. R1(P) TRUE COPY OF NOTE DATED 31.12.2018 R1(Q) TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 24.12.2018 FROM THE PETITIONER R1(R) TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 26.12.2018 FROM THE PETITIONER R1(S) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 01.01.2019 R1(T) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 07.01.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER R1(U) TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE NO.P3/13691/2017 DATED 11.01.2019 R1(V) TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 28.01.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER R1(W) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18.02.2019 R1(X) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.P1/428/2012 DATED 24.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT R1(Y) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.P1/428/2012 DATED 12.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ## **W.P.(C) No. 14345/2019** **-77-** OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT R1(AA) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - (03) EAST KARKARDOOMA COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.80/2019