ROHITASHAWA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant while serving as an IPS officer in the Rajasthan Cadre, submitted his resignation letter to His Excellency, the President of India on 18.3.91 through proper channel. In this letter of resignation he has expressed number of grounds for tendering his resignation and summed up that he is submitting the resignation due to the fact of harassment and atrocities committed on him. He submitted that his career is damaged beyond repairable point by the conspirators and the highest political and executive authorities of the State. His resignation was not forwarded by the State Government to the Excellency, the President of India for according sanction. Subsequently, he submitted another resignation letter dated 27.3.91 (Annx. A5). THE State Govt forwarded the same with their recommendations to the Central Govt for their acceptance. THE Central Govt after examining the same and in consultation with the DOP & T and Ministry of Law accepted the resignation w.e.f. 13.6.91 (Annx. Al). THE above Department/Ministry were consulted as there were criminal cases pending against the applicant in various Courts in Rajasthan. Meanwhile, during the pendency of acceptance of the resignation, the applicant contested the Parliamentary Election from 'Tonk' Constituency in Rajasthan as a Janata Dal, candidate. After the election in which the applicant lost, he started representing for withdrawal of his resignation on the ground that he had not tendered his resignation 'unconditionally' but the same was conditional and 'conditional' resignation was doctored by somebody in the State Govt. to read it as 'unconditional'. His request was examined in the Ministry and comments of the State Govt were obtained. Since the All India Service (DCRB) Rules, does not provide withdrawal of resignation once it was accepted and a notification issued, his request was turned down with the approval of the Home Minister. THE applicant also approached this Tribunal through O.A. No.70/92 which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 12.9.94 (Annx. A7). For the completion of facts, it may also be stated here that the applicant approached the National Commission for SC & ST on 4.5.93 and the Hon'ble Member vide letter dated 10.5.93 forwarded his representation to the Ministry for examining the same. THE Ministry examined the representation and submitted its report/comments to the Commission and the Commission after holding discussion and hearing the applicant, expressed its satisfaction with the stand taken by the Ministry. THEreafter, the applicant made further representation to the National Commission for SC & ST and the Commission vide its letter dated 14.2.2001 (Annx. A3), sought parawise comments from the Ministry which was submitted vide letter dated 16.4.2001 (Annx. A14). THE case of the applicant is that during these proceedings, he came to know about the fact that his resignation letter has not been accepted by the competent authority. By way of this O.A., the applicant has prayed for declaring the impugned order dated 13.6.91 (Annx. A1), as void ab-initio and is of no legal consequence as the same has not been accepted by the competent authority and has sought further direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to perform his duties and also to grant him pay and all service benefits w.e.f. 14.6.91.

(2.) The case has been contested by the respondents by filing separate reply affidavits. In the reply affidavits, it has been submitted by the respondents that the averments made by the applicant in various paras of this application are more or less the repetition of averments made by him in his earlier O.A. No. 70/92, which had been properly, comprehensively and effectively controverted by the answering respondent in their reply to O.A. No.70/92. It is further submitted that the applicant in the garb of the said Presidential notification dated 13.6.91 on some other grounds is trying to re-open and reagitate the same averments and submissions which had been made by him in the earlier O.A. No.70/92. Thus, according to the respondents, since the said controversy about the resignation being unconditional and acceptance thereof by the competent authority had been finally adjudicated by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.9.94 as such the present petition is not maintainable. Regarding acceptance of resignation by the competent authority, it has been submitted that under the Govt of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, issued under Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, the relevant subject matter under reference was with the Prime Minister functioning as the Home Minister and the Prime Minister, exercising his powers under the aforesaid Rules, had issued the standing order dated 31.12.90 (Annx.A26) regarding disposal of cases under his charge by indicating the specified matters which will come to him as Home Minister and also directing the rest of the matters will be disposed of by the Minister of State. According to the respondents, since the applicant was holding the post in the IPS below the level of Joint Secretary, when his resignation was accepted, as such the Minister of State was competent to dispose of the matter of acceptance of resignation of the applicant.

(3.) THE only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the notification dated 13.6.91 thereby accepting the resignation of the applicant w.e.f. the after noon of 13.6.91 is ex facie illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab-initio in asmuch as Sh. Subodh Kant Sahai was only a Minister of State (Home) and was not Minister Incharge. He argued that at the relevant time the Ministry of Home Affairs was also headed by the Prime Minister himself therefore he alone was competent to accept the resignation of the applicant on behalf of the President which is not done in the instant case. Thus according to the Counsel for the applicant, the resignation accepted by the Minister of State (Home) is invalid and nullity. THE learned Counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 34 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Syed Qamarali, 1967 SLR SC 228 and argued that the order without jurisdiction is nullity and the order which has been passed in violation of mandatory provisions of rules are of no legal existence and can be challenged at any time.