NARAYAN SHUKLA,J - (1.) THIS intra-court appeal has arisen from the order dated 19 th of January, 2000, passed in Writ Petition No.6034 of 1990 (SS) as well as the order dated 12.12.2003, passed in the Review Petition No.63 of 2000.
(2.) HEARD Km.Vishwa Mohini, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. V.S. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Orderly Peon on 8th of February, 1988 in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Research, Policy Planning, Rules and Manual, U.P., Lucknow by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. The appellant, being posted as such, tendered resignation on 29th of May, 1990. The appellant submitted resignation to the Inspector General of Police to accept it w.e.f. 1 st of June, 1990. Earlier to this also the appellant had submitted resignation on 21.5.1989 as well as on 14th of March, 1990. The Senior Superintendent of Police forwarded the appellant's resignation vide letter dated 29th of May, 1990 to the Inspector General of Police for its acceptance, which was accepted on 2nd of June, 1990. However, the appellant challenged the order dated 2nd of June, 1990 of the Inspector General of Police, accepting the appellant's resignation, by means of Writ Petition No.6034 of 1990 (SS), on the ground that the order of acceptance of resignation letter is without jurisdiction, mala fide and illegal and it amounts to termination simplicitor and is against the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Further also is in violation of Para 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The appellant stated that he was compelled to submit the resignation by one Shri Raj Narayan Shukla being posted as Head Constable in the office of the Inspector General of Police and on 2 nd of June, 1990 itself he tried to submit a representation to the Inspector General of Police for not accepting the resignation, but in turn he was provided the order of termination. The writ court dismissed the writ petition by means of order dated 19th of January, 2000 with the observation that the Inspector General of Police being higher in rank, under whom the petitioner-appellant was working at the relevant time, was fully competent to accept the resignation. Moreover, the petitioner-appellant failed to show any Rule or provision to indicate that the appointing authority of Orderly Peon in the office of Inspector General is Senior Superintendent of Police, while in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Senior Superintendent of Police has been made appointing authority under the delegated power of the Inspector General of Police. It has also been observed that there is no bar that the resignation cannot be accepted by any officer higher in rank to the appointing authority and as such the acceptance of resignation by the Inspector General of Police is not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SO far as the appellant's allegation that his resignation was taken under duress is concerned, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant himself requested to accept his resignation w.e.f. 1 st of June, 1990. The appellant sought review of this order on the same very grounds with the allegation that the resignation was obtained fraudulently under coercion. However, this ground is not even touched by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by means of order dated 12th of December, 2003 dismissed the Review Petition as misconceived with the observations that the appellant was working outside the jurisdiction of S.S.P. i.e. in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Research, Policy Planning, Rules and Manual, U.P. Lucknow and the staff posted under the Inspector General of Police is not under the administrative control of S.S.P., Lucknow. It is not the case of termination from service. The resignation was tendered by the appellant with the request that the same be accepted w.e.f. 1st of June, 1990, which was accepted by the Inspector General of Police on 2nd of June, 1990 while the appellant was working in his office, therefore, the order passed by the Inspector General of Police cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.;