VINEET SARAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation in September 1991. In the year 2000 the respondent No. 5 was posted as Branch Manager of the Moradabad branch where the petitioner was working. The petitioner claims that he was harassed by the said Branch Manager, regarding which he had made several complaints. According to him, he was not being informed of the work assigned to him his work table was time and again shifted from one place to another; his general/medical leave was not being sanctioned; certain financial irregularities were also being committed in the Branch office, besides many other grievances which he had repeatedly complained of. A notice had been given to the petitioner on 2 -9 -2000 to explain as to why his medical leave should not be refused, to which he filed his reply. By a detailed memorandum of grievances submitted on 21 -9 -2000 the petitioner had again pointed out the irregularities committed in the office, in the hope that the management would take action in the matter, but the respondent authorities neither replied to his letters nor did they take any action. Thereafter on 12 -10 -2000 a show cause notice was again given to the petitioner for coming late after lunch. In such circumstances on the same day, i.e. 12 -10 -2000, the petitioner submitted a letter, the English translation of which is as under: "I have been subjected to extreme mental torture by the superior officers as a result of which I am being compelled to tender my resignation. I have already submitted a letter regarding this to your Honour through proper channel. Kindly accept my resignation letter." Thereafter his resignation had been accepted by the Senior Divisional Manager on 11 -1 -2001, which was communicated by the Branch Manager vide order dated 13 -1 -2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 32 of 2001 on the ground that the resignation was not tendered voluntarily. On an objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Life Insurance Corporation that an appeal lies against such order under Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1960, the said writ petition was disposed of on 4 -1 -2002 with the direction that if the petitioner files an appeal within one month, the same shall be considered by the Corporation without any objection as to delay. Immediately thereafter on 21 -1 -2002 the petitioner submitted his appeal before the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation. Since the said appeal was not decided, the petitioner was constrained to file another Writ Petition No. 7088 of 2002 which was decided on 17 -2 -2003. Without examining the matter on merits, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed that the appeal may be decided in accordance with law within two months. Thereafter the decision on his appeal was communicated to the petitioner by the Manager of the Corporation vide order dated 19 -4 -2003, which reads as follows: "This has reference to your letter dated 25 -2 -2003 along with which you had submitted certified copy of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's order dated 17 -2 -2003 and a Xerox copy of your appeal dated 21 -1 -2002. We may inform you that the matter was examined by the competent authority but it has not been found possible to reappoint you as Assistant in the service of the Corporation."
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11 -1 -2001 passed by respondent No. 3 as communicated to the petitioner by letter/order dated 13 -1 -2001 of the respondent No. 4 and also the order dated 19 -4 -2003 passed in appeal by the respondent -Corporation. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. I have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Corporation at great length and have perused the record.
(3.) THE main ground of challenge to the action of the respondents is that the said letter of the petitioner dated 12 -10 -2000 could not be treated as resignation in the eye of law for it was not a voluntary act as the same was submitted under duress and was extracted by coercion. It could thus not have been treated as a valid resignation and was wrongly accepted by the respondent -authorities. In support of his submissions Sri Ajay Bhanot has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P., 2003(1) LBESR 491 (SC) : 2003 (2) ESC 105 and P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 S.C.C. 141. It was also urged that the petitioner being a regular employee of the Corporation, his services could not be dispensed with without any enquiry. With regard to the decision in appeal, it was submitted that the same was a non speaking order and had been passed without application of mind in as much as the prayer in the appeal was for treating the resignation of the petitioner as null and void and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits, and the order in appeal states that the competent authority did not find it possible to reappoint the petitioner as Assistant, when actually there was no question of re -appointment of the petitioner.;