Palok Basu, J. - (1.) IF voluntariness is the primary requirement in all actions concerning a document which is termed as 'resignation letter', it should follow that the voluntariness should be explicit from the initial stage of writing of the said letter and extend to the voluntary action of tendering the same to the concerned authority or his agent.
(2.) THE controversy in the instant writ petition shall be correctly answered if there be no confusion about the steps which have to be taken and things which may intervene between writing of it on the one hand and submitting the same on the other. In case it is found that there is ab solute absence of any proof of voluntarily tendering of the resignation letter, the mere writing of it should never be taken to be a voluntary conduct of resigning from the post of the person concerned. What has been stated above, is the out-come of all the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether it was the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, reported in Supreme Court Service Rulings, Vol. 19, page 396 or it was the case of Gopal Chandra Misra, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301, or it was the case of Kasilingam v. PS.G. College of Technology, reported in AIR 1981 SC 789 or it was the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 27 or it was the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 321. Lakhan Singh, who was the petitioner before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal was successful in convincing the Tribunal that what was said to be resigna tion letter on his part, was not voluntary termination of his employment by his own will but was also contrary to the letter and spirit emanating from the provisions of Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regula tion. Consequently, when the alleged resignation letter dated 8th May, 1980 was said to have accepted by the respondent authority, the same should have never determined his employment. Lakhan Singh went to the Public Services Tribunal challenging the same and luckily the Public Service Tribunal went in his favour.
(3.) THE relevant finding of the Tribunal should be quoted here: "Considering the contents of the resigna tion and the surrounding circumstances I hold that the resignation of the petitioner was unfair ly accepted contrary to the spirit of Section 9 of the Police Act and para 505 of the Police Regulations. Such and acceptance cannot be considered lawful or valid. Hence, the applica tion of the petitioner dated 22nd June, 1980 operates as valid withdrawal of the notice and the petitioner has to be treated in service." Since the order of Tribunal was passed on 5-4-1986 and more than six years had lapsed from the date of the alleged resignation letter, it was held by the Tribunal that balance of the salary or remuneration was not to be paid to the petitioner. It is good that Sri P.N. Bajpayee, learned Counsel ap pearing on behalf of the respondent con cerned has stated that the respondent No. 1 does not and would not claim even if decision of this petition goes in his favour, for balance of salary or remuneration and wants the posting on the cadre with salary as it exists on date..;