I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the following facts are not in controversy.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Superintending Engineer in the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, vide order dated Sept. 12, 1972 (Annexure P. 1) in the pay scale of Rs.1300-60-1600-100-1800 plus such other allowances as are sanctioned by the Institute from time to time. Two of the conditions of this appointment, which are relevant to the dispute raised in the petition, were as follows:- 1. His appointment is temporary and may be terminated at any time with a month's notice by either side, viz. the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason. It will be open to the Institute to pay in lieu of notice pay for the period by which the notice falls short of one month. Similarly, if he wishes to resign his post, he may do so by depositing with the Institute pay and allowance in lieu of notice period by which it falls short of one month. 2. He should also note that he is to conform to the rules, discipline and conduct prevailing in this Institute and those imposed by the Institute on all their employees. Later, on some anonymous complaints against the petitioner and some employees under his control with regard to the purchase of timber, the Central Bureau of Investigation started some enquiry. The petitioner felt strongly about it and assuming the nature of the allegations likely to be made against him, submitted a representation to the Director of the Institute of on March 11, 1982 (Annexure P. 2) explaining his position. As nothing tangible was done in the light of this representation and the petitioner had failed to reconcile with the enquiry that was being conducted he addressed another representation to the President of the Institute through the Director in March 22, 1982 (Annexure P.4). This representation reads as follows:- "Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh. Department of Hospital Engineering & Planning. D.O. No. Engg/82-SE/TIMBER/55 Dated 22nd March, 1982. J.C. Mehta, Superintending Hospital Engineer-cum-Estate Officer and Head of Department. Re. Timber Inquiry Case RC-5/81-Representation of Hon'ble President through the Director, P. G. I. "Respected. In continuation to my representation dated 12-3-82 and 20-3-1982, enclosed is my final representation. I request you to kindly read it with judicious mind and discuss the same personally with the Honourable President. 1. I am more than 100% confident that we have committed no irregularity. Question of lack of integrity does not arise. 2. Cdr. Mehandroo through his influences with the Honourable Members of the Governing Body and other officials in the Ministry of Health is openly declaring our Suspension; This public humiliation if these representation are ignored, is bound to be cause of break-down after 3 years torture by CBI. 3. If Honourable President listens to me in the presence of the Secretary (Health), Director and any senior-Engineer, he will be convinced of my professional capability, integrity and devotion the pioneering work done in Hospital Engineering in India at P.G.I. A/2 an hr. meeting is requested. For the 99% likely imputations in this case S. E. is not even responsible as per rules. 4. If, however, he is not willing, then best course is that I should leave P.G.I. I have suggested you 4 alternatives. You may kindly convey Honourable President's decision by 1-4-1982. 5. If Honourable President courageously defended 2 AI1MS doctors (including one at the age of 39) he as father of family should also give protection to other young engineers who built the department from scratch and ruined his career. In this case Prof Neki in league with Cdr. Mehandroo was complainant (CBI Case RC-5/81). Cdr. Mehandroo is only Class-I CBI witness who even as XEN does not know accounting system but will prove duties of S.E. with kind regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (J.C. Mehta) Enel : 1. Representation. 2. Cheque for Rs. 2890.00 3. Annotated replies to likely imputations. Prof. I.C. Pathak, Director, P.G.I., Chandigarh." The enclosure, with this representation gave a detailed narration of facts and the explanations offered by the petitioner to the apprehended accusations. In order to clear his position, he even suggested four alternatives in which he could be dealt with and one of these suggested alternatives reads thus:- "Alternative No. 1 Resignation I am submitting a cheque bearing No. H/686878 dated 22nd March, 1982 for a sum of Rs. 2890.00 towards one month's pay so that Cdr. Mehandroo could be obliged. I may please be relieved from my duties. This should please Ministry of Health, if they are unhappy. However, I will not leave the station and formal enquiry may go on as I positively do not want to carry bad name in the eyes of public. I can assure you nothing will come out of inquiry." The concluding part of this annexure reads as follows "Kindly discuss the above requests at personal level with the Honourable President and advise me about his decision at the earliest-say by 1-4-1982. If you permit I can explain to Honourable President/Secretary but in your presence." Before the petitioner could hear anything in reply to Annexure P. 4, he wrote a letter on April 10, 1982 (Annexure P. 5) to the Director of the Institute, the body of which reads as follows:- "Kindly refer to my letter No. Engg/82-SE/Timber/55 dated 22-3-1982 in which I had offered conditional resignation. 2. I hereby withdraw the same with immediate effect as the same was under duress because comments/justice was being ignored on my repeated representations. I do not want to tarnish my image and I am prepared to face the enquiry. However I request that as provided in C.V.C. manual justice be ensured. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-(J. C. Mehta) Dated 10-4-82 Supdg. Hospital Engineer-cum-E. O. Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh." As per the stand of the respondent authorities, this letter was received in the Office of the Director on April 12, 1982. On the very day, i. e. April 10, 1982 the petitioner wrote a letter, Annexure P. 5; he also sent a telegram (Annexure P. 6) to the Secretary Health, Government of India, the substance of which is in the following words:- "Resignation Was Under Mental Distress As Justice Was Being Denied With A Conspiracy To Protect Others (.) Resignation Withdrawn On Tenth (.) Willing To Face Inquiry (.) Kindly Intervene For Justice(.) J.C. Mehta" All that the petitioner heard in reply to the above noted communications, was the impugned latter (Annexure P. 8) of the Director, dated April 16, 1982 communicating the acceptance of petitioner's resignation by the President and the operative part of the same reads as follows:- "The case was sent to the President of the institute for decision (as a desired by you) and he has accepted your resignation with immediate effect. You are thus required to hand over, charge of your post today, the 16th of April 1982 to the Deputy Director (Admn.) You had enclosed one month's pay through cheque dated 22nd March, 1982. Since you have worked till April 1982, the proportionate amount from this cheque will be refunded to you."
(3.) According to the return on behalf of the respondent authorities, the resignation had been accepted by the President on April 14, 1982. On that day the petitioner had also addressed a telegram (Annexure P 9) to the President, i.e., the Union Health Minister, and the same reads as follows:- "Resignation Was Under Mental Distress As Justice Was Being Denied Witfi A Conspiracy To Protect Others(.) Resignation Withdrawn On Tenth April (.) Kindly Intervene For Justice(.) Please Give Time For Interview. J.C. Merita." In a nut shell, the case of the respondents is that relationship of employer and employees between the parties stood severed with effect from March 22, 1982 when the petitioner tendered his resignation or, in any case, from April 1, 1982, that being the ultimate date mentioned by the petitioner in his letter, or in other words, before the withdrawal of the Vs. resignation by the petitioner vide his letter dated April 10, 1982, vide Annexure P. 5. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner urges with some amount of vehemence that firstly, the contents of Annexure P. 4 and its enclosure do not at all amount to a resignation ; secondly, if it can be styled as a resignation tendered by the petitioner, the same stood withdrawn before its acceptance and thirdly, the President of the Institute, i. e., the Union Minister of Health, was not at all competent to accept the resignation in view of the provisions of the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966 (for short, the Act), under which the Institute has been constituted as a body corporate with perpetual succession. As per section 10 of the Act the Governing Body of the Institute which is to be constituted in the manner prescribed by the regulations framed under the Act, is the Executive Committee of the Institute and exercises such powers which are conferred by the Regulations. As per sub-section (3) of this section, the President is to be the Chairman of the Governing Body and exercises such powers and discharges such functions as may be prescribed by the Regulations. Subsection (3) of section 11 authorises the Director who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute (sub-section 1) and also the Secretary of the Governing Body to exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed by the Regulations or may be delegated to him by the Institute of the President of the Institute or by the Governing Body or the Chairman of the Governing Body. Schedule II to the Regulations specifies the appointing, disciplinary and appellate authorities for the various posts in the Institute. Undisputably the petitioner being in the grade of Rs. 1,300 - 1,800 was to be appointed and was so appointed by the Governing Body. In other words, the Governing Body of the Institute is the appointing and punishing authority of the petitioner. It is in the light of these provisions that Mr. Bhandari contends that the alleged acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the President himself on April 14, 1982, cannot possibly cut short the status of the petitioner as employee of the institute and according to him it was only the Governing Body of the Institute which could accept his resignation. Faced with this situation, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the respondents contends that firstly, the Governing Body of the Institute has vide its resolution No. 5 dated Sept. 15, 1980, authorised the President of the Institute to accept the resignation of a member of the faculty in a case where the notice period of the resignation is likely to expire before the impending or likely meeting of the Governing Body and secondly, the resignation in order to be effective, was not required to be accepted as according to him, the petitioner had himself fixed the outer limit (April 1, 1982) with effect from which the resignation was to take effect. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find it difficult to accept the stand of the respondents.;