SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State Bank of Patiala
Vs.
Phoolpati
C.A.No.1363 of 2005
(Arijit Pasayat and S.H.Kapadia JJ.)
23.02.2005
Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of a judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the
appellant-Bank was not justified in relieving Hari Ram, deceased husband of the
respondent, from services of the Bank with effect from 5.3.2002.
3. The factual background which is almost undisputed is as under:
“Late Hari Ram joined the services of the appellant-Bank on 9.1.1985. In the
normal course, he would have retired on 6.6.2005. On 7.1.2002 he submitted his
resignation to the Branch Manager of the Kungar Branch requesting its
acceptance w.e.f. 1.3.2002, which was received by the Bank on 8.1.2002. On
4.2.2002 late Hari Ram sought to withdraw the proposed resignation. The ground
indicated was that at the time of writing the letter he was seriously ill, was
suffering from ever, and due to the effect of medicines he was mentally
disturbed. He, therefore, requested not to give effect to the letter. On
receipt of the letter, appellant-Bank wrote back to him saying that since he
had indicated to have written the letter due to ailment, proof of ailment and
supporting documents were required to be filed. It was clearly indicated that
in the event of failure to submit the documents, he would be relieved from the
Bank's service w.e.f. 1.3.2002. No document was submitted. On the contrary,
another letter was received from late Hari Ram on 4.3.2002 reiterating his
prayer for accepting his resignation. The request for resignation was accepted
and late Hari Ram was relieved from the Bank's service on 5.3.2002. On 8.6.2002
late Hari Ram expired. On 12.8.2002 the admitted service benefits were accepted
by the respondent. On 7.10.2002 a with petition was filed before the High Court
taking the stand that late Hari Ram continued to be in service of the Bank and
the order directing his relieve from the Bank's service w.e.f. 5.3.2002 was
illegal. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment accepted the prayer.”
4. It was concluded that the resignation was withdrawn before it came into
effect, and the letter purported to have been received by appellant-Bank on
4.3.2002 was clearly of no consequence. As the resignation was withdrawn much
prior to the stipulated date of its acceptance, the Bank had no legal authority
to relieve him w.e.f. 5.3.2002.
5. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank
submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate effect of the letter dated
4.3.2002, the factum that late Hari Ram never questioned the Banks action so
long as he was alive and the receipt of the retiral benefits unconditionally by
the respondent.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that late Hari Ram
never intended to pursue his letter of resignation and had withdrawn the same
before it was actually accepted. The original letter dated 7.1.2002 clearly
indicated that the same was to be operative w.e.f. 1.3.2002. There was no
acceptance of the same before 1.3.2002 and, in fact, he was allowed to continue
till 4.3.2002. Therefore, jural relationship had not been snapped. Merely
because late Hari Ram had not questioned validity of the order dated 4.3.2002
that cannot lead to an inference that same provided validity to an invalidity
act.
7. It is a settled position in law that unless the employee is relieved
from the duty after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or
resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come
to an end. (See: Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia).
Though much stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent on this
decision to contend that the resignation having not been accepted prior to
1.3.2002, the jural relationship continued does not stand the logic. The
undisputed fact is that after withdrawal of the letter of resignation, late
Hari Ram was specifically asked to justify his claim that he had sought for
resignation under mental tension. It was clearly indicated to him that in case
of failure to justify the stand by producing documents, resignation was to be
accepted. He did not choose to file the documents asked for and he again
reiterated the request for acceptance of his resignation. Much stress was laid
by learned counsel for the respondent that letter received on 4.3.2002 was not
dated. But the same is really of no consequence. The undisputed position is
that the same was received on 4.3.2002 by the Branch Manager and was acted
upon. The chain of events, as noted above, go to show that the last letter
which was received by the Branch Manager on 4.3.2002 was in continuance of the
earlier letter dated 7.1.2002. The fact remains that authorities wanted to
verify the bona fides of claim that he had written the letter under mental
tension. In any event, during his life time late Hari Ram never questioned
the legality of the Bank's action in relieving him from duty w.e.f. 5.3.2002 by
accepting his resignation. The admissible service benefits were accepted by the
respondent.
8. A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the
link of the resignor with his offices and terminates his tenure. This position
was highlighted by a constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India and
Ors. vs. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors. , and reiterated in Balram Gupta
vs. Union of India and Anr. 9. J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India and
Anr. 8), Nand Keshwar Prasad vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative
Ltd. and Ors. 8) and Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project and Development
India Ltd. ).
9. In the instant case the factual position clearly shows that late Hari
Ram had tendered his resignation which was sought to be withdrawn. But the
withdrawal was not accepted and subsequently there was reiteration of the
prayer for voluntary resignation. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that
the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of appellant-Bank
relieving late Hari Ram w.e.f. 5.3.2002 consequent upon accepting his prayer
for resignation.
10. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The appeal is
allowed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.