I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The petitioner who is employed as a Sectional Officer (Overseer) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to accept his resignation, Annexure P. 1, tendered on April 13, 1972. The operative part of this resignation letter reads thus "I hereby tender my resignation from the permanent post of Sectional Officer (Civil) with three months notice which expires on 14-7-1972." It is the undisputed case that prior to tendering of this resignation the petitioner had applied for certain leave which was not allowed and he remained absent from his duties. The stand taken by the respondents in their return is that since the petitioner was not performing any duties prior to the tendering of his resignation, Annexure P. 1, he must desposit three months pay in lieu of notice period before his resignation can be accepted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I feel it is a case where the petition deserves to be allowed.
(2.) It is the conceded position that there is no specific rule in terms of which Annexure P. 1 has been tendered by the petitioner. It is only in departmental instructions No. 4971 GII 58/74171 dated Sept. 22, 1958 that it has been provided "that resignation should normally be accepted and unless there are specific reasons which would justify non-possible, as it would not be in the interest of the Government to continue to retain by force the services of a reluctant employee. A resignation must in any case be accepted within three months of the date of the receipt of the letter of resignation". The respondent authorities have not disclosed any reasons which make it impossible for them to accept the resignation of the petitioner.
(3.) So far as the stand of the respondent authorities for the payment of three months emoluments by the petitioner before the acceptance of his resignation is concerned, I find that there is no justification for that claim. Firstly, as already pointed out there are no rules which specifically say that an employee is entitled to the acceptance of his resignation if he either gives a three months notice about his resignation or pays three months emoluments in lieu of the notice period. It is only in the light of the above noted instructions that the petitioner claims the relief prayed for. These instructions are silent as to whether the respondent authorities are entitled to ask for three months emoluments or pay in lieu of the notice period which the petitioner in this case has undisputably given. Secondly, I am of the opinion that in spite of his absence from his duties, the petitioner continued to be in the service of the State and thus in normal course was entitled to his salary and other amounts unless the State has punished him for his absence in accordance with law. No proceedings have been taken against him on account of his absence for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities. In the absence of any such proceedings, the respondents cannot justifiably deny the payment of emoluments to the petitioner at least till the date of the tendering of the resignation, that is, April 13, 1972. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions undertakes on his behalf that the would have no claim to his salary (this does not include other amounts, such as, Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. due to/the petitioner) for the period of his absence from duty in case the respondent authorities accept his resignation, Annexure P. 1.;