V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed on 6.8.84 as Nai (Barber) in the company 15th Battalion of Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (in brief P.A.C.) Agra. He along with his friends on 6.3.93 on the eve of Holi consumed some intoxicant at his residence. His wife looking to his abnormal behaviour panicked and approached the Platoon Commandant Shri Vijendra Singh for help as the head quarters were only 100 paces away from the residence of the petitioner. The Platoon Commandant came to his house and tried to pacify him. But the petitioner was under Intoxication and not in a fit state of mind and he uttered objectionable words. This it appears to have annoyed the Platoon Commandant who it is undisputed came to the residence of the petitioner again along with three or four constables and forcibly took him to the head quarter. He was served with a show cause notice on same day by Shri Shekhar Pratap Singh, Company Commander. The petitioner was made to reply same day apologising for his mistake and assuring that it would not be repeated in future. This probably did not satisfy the Platoon Commandant. And the petitioner resigned on same day that is 6.3.93, on the ground that he was suffering from itching. The wife of the petitioner on whose complaint Shri Vijendra Singh came to the house of the petitioner made an application on the very next day that is 7.3.93 to the Platoon Commandant that her husband was not mentally fit when he resigned, therefore, his resignation may not be accepted. He was ready to serve and be reinstated in the service so that the children may not suffer. The father of the petitioner also submitted an application on 10.3.93 to the Deputy Inspector General for canceling the resignation given by the petitioner as he was mentally sick and it was not a voluntary resignation. The petitioner himself by letter dated 24.3.93 requested the Platoon Commandant that he being ill was not in his senses when he resigned, therefore, it may not be accepted. The Platoon Commandant did not pay any heed to these requests and accepted the resignation by his order dated 11.3.93. It is this order of acceptance of resignation, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Shri Rajeev Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. J. Sahai learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, it is not disputed that the petitioner was under intoxication on 6.3.93 and was not in fit mental state. So much so that when his officer came to his residence on the request of his wife, the petitioner being under Intoxication uttered some objectionable words against him. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit. It is admitted that when Shri Vijendra Singh came to the house of petitioner, he found him mentally unusual. The allegation in paragraph 7 of the petition that Shri Vijendra Singh came again with some constables and took the petitioner forcibly to headquarter is not denied. It is further not denied that when petitioner was brought to the headquarter, he was first served with a show cause notice, and then he resigned. All this happened on same day that is 6.3.93 when petitioner's mental condition was admittedly unusual.;