Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shachindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Brijendra Vikram Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents-Central Reserve Police Force.
(2.) The petitioner, who served as Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force, has challenged the impugned office order dated 04.06.2013 issued by the Commandant, 196 Bn., Central Reserve Police Force, Dugani, District Seraikella, Jharkhand whereby the resignation tendered by the petitioner has been accepted w.e.f. the said date i.e. 04.06.2013. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.10.2013, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Central Sector, Lucknow whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to permit him to withdraw resignation, has been rejected.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the resignation tendered by the petitioner by means of application/letter dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit) was not given by him in a fit state of mind, rather it was tendered under coercion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was under treatment for depression despite that he reported for duty on 03.06.2013 and on the same day warning was issued due to which the petitioner became more depressed. It has further been stated by the petitioner that he wrote a letter indicating therein that since he was being threatened of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, though he was ill, he submitted resignation from service. It has further been submitted in the said paragraph that respondent No.4-Commandant, 196 Bn. Central Reserve Police Force insisted him to write the resignation under his dictation and it is in these circumstances that the petitioner wrote what the respondent No.4 had told him to write, on the basis of which, the impugned order dated 04.06.2013 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that since the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not in a position to take any decision on his own, hence the alleged resignation letter ought to be treated to have been written under duress and it be treated to be of no legal value.;