P.K. Jain, J. - (1.) This secondappeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 3.10.98 dismissing the first appeal of the appellants and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in Suit NO. 309 of 1995.
(2.) Plaintiff-respondent S.M. Chopra filed the aforesaid suit for the following substantial reliefs : (a) That by the decree of this Hon'ble Court it may be declared that the resignation of the plaintiff dated 11.3.92 being obtained by the defendants by force, under coercion and without the free consent and will of the plaintiff is illegal and voidable and is not binding on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is continuing in services of the defendants without any effect of the said resignation letter. (b) That by the decree of mandatory injunction, the defendants be directed to deposit all the dues of the plaintiff including the arrears of salary, emoluments and allowances as well as with the amount relating to the encashment of 274 earned leaves w.e.f. 11.3.92 in the current account No. 49 of the plaintiff in the Lohia Nagar Branch of the defendants within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court after calculating the same as per bank rules and regulations and to continue to pay the same till the retirement of the plaintiff.
(3.) The plaint allegations relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that the plaintiff Joined services to the defendants bank on 30th August, 1970 at the branch office at Jalandhar in capacity of subordinate staff. Thereafter he continued his services in the bank in various capacities at various branches of the bank. He was promoted from time to time and alt of a sudden without any cause he was transferred to Head Office by letter dated 10.3.92 in which it was also mentioned that the responsibilities of the branch till 10.3.92 will be of the plaintiff. The said letter dated 10.3.92 was issued from the Head Office of the defendants and was addressed to Rakesh Malhotra, the then A.R.M. Ghaziabad. Neither any reference number nor letter number was mentioned in the letter nor it was sent directly to the plaintiff. Simultaneously by the said letter Sri Rakesh Malhotra was posted as Senior Manager of the Branch in place of the plaintiff. It was also stated in the said letter that the plaintiff be relieved immediately to report for his further duties at Head Office on the same day, i.e., on 10.3.92 copy of the said letter was handed over to the plaintiff by Sri Rakesh Malhotra on 11.3.92 which caused great surprise to the plaintiff. On 11.3.92 another letter dated 11.3.92 was sent by the Regional Office, Ghaziabad of the defendants to Sri Rakesh Malhotra showing his appointment as Senior Manager at Lohia Nagar Branch. Copy of this letter was given to the plaintiff on 11.3.92 in the afternoon. The plaintiff felt suspicious of the said letter as they were issued in mysterious circumstances. The plaintiff therefore became confused. Any how in the same state of condition he rushed to the Head Office at New Delhi to report himself for further duties and as such he reported there at 4.30 p.m. on 11.3.92. The plaintiff was not assigned any seat or designation in the Head Office either by the concerned authorities or through the said letter. He contacted the Deputy Chief Manager (Personnel) to know about the designation and seating arrangement but nothing was told to him except to wait and see. At 4.45 p.m. the plaintiff was summoned to the cabin of Sri Surendra Mohan, the then General Manager of the defendant hank who asked the plaintiff to submit his resignation immediately without any reason or cause. He was also threatened by him of dire consequences on failure to submit the resignation by handing over him to CBI on false ground of committing frauds in the bank services. Besides the General Manager four other persons unknown to the plaintiff were also present at that time in the cabin of General Manager. They were also assisting the General Manager to obtain the resignation of the plaintiff by force. They created the 'Gherao' of the plaintiff from all sides and compelled him by manhandling to write a resignation letter from the services of the bank then and there. The plaintiff who was already in an unstable condition of mind became totally confused and frustrated in the aforesaid conditions and as such he lost his balance of mind and was not in a position even to write a letter of resignation or anything else with his own mind. He was unable to understand the consequences of submitting the said resignation letter. He had definitely told that he does not want to resign from his services as he had no other source of income to feed his family. The request made by the plaintiff was not considered by the General Manager and he was compelled with the help of four other persons to tender resignation letter. The General Manager himself dictated the letter of resignation and the plaintiff was forced to write and sign the same. After the letter was signed by the plaintiff it was snatched from his hands and thus the letter of resignation was obtained under coercion and without his free consent and will and even without providing sufficient time to the plaintiff to consider regarding the consequences of the same. Simultaneously the resignation letter was also accepted at once at 5.00 p.m. on the same day which is closing time of the office. That in fact there was no reason for the plaintiff to tender his resignation. He was working on a respectable post with a considerable amount of salary as well as other emolument and allowances. The only reason of obtaining a resignation by force from the plaintiff appears to be that the management of the defendants made a plan to get rid off the plaintiff by creating a story of transfer and by issuing transfer letters and by procuring the resignation letter from him. It was obtained with mala fide intention and preplan of the Management. In this way, the letter of resignation obtained from the plaintiff with force and under coercion and also without his free consent is a voidable document in the eye of law and is not at all binding on the plaintiff. It deserves to be cancelled through a decree of declaration by the Court. It is further alleged that on 12.3.92 the plaintiff lodged an F.I.R. with SHO Cannaught place. New Delhi by Registered post and also informed the General Manager about withdrawal of his resignation by letter dated 12.3.92. On 30.4.92 Sri Rakesh Malhotra Senior Manager of the Lohia Nagar Branch called to the plaintiff in his office to discuss some matters and when the plaintiff reached there at about 11.00 a.m. two unknown persons not the employees of the defendants entered the cabin with Sri Rakesh Malhotra and compelled the plaintiff to sign the four papers which were already typed. Although the plaintiff could not read those papers but it was told to him that those papers related regarding his consent for the settlement of his provident fund, gratuity and other dues against the dues of the bank regarding furniture facilities and House loan and Car loan etc. which were provided to him by the defendants. When the plaintiff resisted the same and tried to leave the cabin he was forcibly made to sit there by manhandling. The plaintiff seeing no other alternative to save his life signed four typed papers at the direction of Sri Rakesh Malhotra and the two unknown persons. These documents were also got signed against free consent and will of the plaintiff. The plaintiff just after leaving the cabin of Sri Rakesh Malhotra reported the aforesaid matter to the SHO Sihani gate. Ghaziabad. A copy of the F.I.R. was also sent to the General Manager of the defendants at the Head Office. New Delhi. It was also averred in the plaint that as per provisions of the bank the adjustment of House loan and Car loan against the P.F. and gratuity is quite illegal and unauthorised. Thereafter the plaintiff wrote so many letters and reminders to the General Manager and C.M.D. through registered post dated 18.6.92. 12.7.92, 22.2.93. 7.6.94 and 4.3.95 requesting them to allow him to join the services but without any result. He had also approached the defendants and its concerned authorities to cancel the resignation letter and other letters but they paid no heed.;