- (1.) The neat question of law involved in the present case is whether a police officer who submits his resignation under Regulation 840 of the Police Regulations of Bengal can be refused permission to resign after the notice period.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector, Unarmed Branch on 16th May, 1994. He received more than 205 rewards and on the other hand he was also awarded two minor punishments. He was posted in different districts and in August, 2005 he was posted in the district of Burdwan till he was transferred to the district of Uttar Dinajpur on 16th May, 2011. While the petitioner was posted in Burdwan, he recorded an FIR as the officer-in-Charge of Andal police station on 12th December, 2009 which was based on the complaint of a student. Another FIR was lodged by a different student in the same police station which was registered by another police officer. After he was transferred to Uttar Dinajpur on 9th July, 2011, FIR No.153 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner and several other persons at Andal P.S. under Sections 341, 323, 325, 109, 506 and 34 of the IPC with added Sections 308 and 379 of the IPC. The date of occurrence of these offences has been recorded as 11th December, 2009. The petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by preferring CRR 2357 of 2011 for quashing the proceedings in Andal P. S. case No. 153 dated 9th July, 2011. This Court permitted the investigation to proceed, however it directed that no coercive measure should be taken against the petitioner without the leave of the Court. While he was posted in Uttar Dinajpur, the petitioner suffered various ailments, including psychiatric challenges for which he was treated. He joined duty on 24th January, 2012 and submitted a letter of resignation on the same day at Uttar Dinajpur. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for unauthorised absence. The enquiry officer found the Petitioner had committed the misconduct as he had admitted his guilt during the enquiry. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Dinajpur, punished him by stopping two increments with cumulative effect. Directions were also issued regarding the manner in which the unauthorised absence was to be treated.
(3.) Immediately after the enquiry proceedings were completed but before the punishment was imposed, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 17th April, 2013. It appears that his earlier letters of resignation dated 24th January, 2011, 4th May, 2012 and 8th March, 2011 had fallen on deaf ears. From the annexures to the present petition it is apparent that the petitioner reiterated his desire to resign in his letter of 1st May, 2013. He had been subjected to another disciplinary enquiry on the ground of wilful dereliction of duty. The petitioner had pleaded guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Superintendent of Police, Uttar Dinajpur, by his order dated 2nd May, 2013 stopped his increment for one year without future effect. The petitioner received a message on 26th June, 2013 requiring him to report for duty. The petitioner replied on the same day that he was not required to comply with the direction to resume duty since a period of two months had elapsed after 17th April, 2013. After receiving another letter on 14th July, 2013 and in spite of legal notices sent on behalf of the petitioner a memo was issued on 3rd September, 2013 to the petitioner calling upon him to report for duty and to show cause why action should not be taken for his unauthorised absence. The show cause notice also mentioned that since a criminal case was pending against him and he was undergoing the punishment in respect of the two charge-sheets issued to him earlier, it was not possible to accept his resignation.;