Akkena Pragad Perraju v. Union Of India & Others

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed in General Reserved Engineer Force (GREF) as a Leading-Hand (non-technical) on 9.11.1991. Noticing that his behaviour had turned abnormal, in April 1998, the petitioner was directed to report to Senior Medical Officer of 42 BRTF for his medical examination, who in turn advised the Administrative Authority to send him for psychiatric examination. In July, 1998, the petitioner was eventually referred to 155, Base Hospital, Tejpur, Assam for specialised treatment. After specialised medical treatment petitioners category was downgraded as GREF-III (Temporary) for 6/12 years with effect from 18.7.1998 and he reported back to his unit. After his discharge from the Base Hospital on 14.7.1998, he was required to visit the Base Hospital again after six months for review. According to the petitioner during his stay at Base Hospital, Tejpur, he was subjected to discriminatory treatment being not from regular Army. The factum of ill-treatment at the Base Hospital, it is claimed, was brought to the notice of the authorities of his unit and he requested for not being sent again to the same hospital. The authorities, however, allegedly did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner made an application dated 11.11.1998 seeking to resign from service with effect from 30.11.1998. He made a request for waiver of three months notice period and undertook to deposit his three months pay in lieu of notice. On 27.11.1998 the petitioner was interviewed by the officers concerned of Headquarter 42 BRTF. He was advised to withdraw his notice for resignation. He, however, did not agree and insisted for his release as early as possible. Accordingly, Headquarter 42 BRTF advised him to submit a fresh notice for resignation which the petitioner did submit seeking resignation from service with effect from 15.12.1998. The petitioner was accordingly granted discharge from service with effect from 15.12.1998 and he was informed of the same on 9.12.1998.

2. Late, the petitioner made an application dated 21.12.1998 requesting for withdrawal of his resignation alleging that the applications for resignation from service were not made by him voluntarily and that he was rather forced to sign the same. He made reference to an application which he claims to have had made seeking to withdraw his application for resignation before the date of his discharge with effect from 15.12.1998. The application so made, it is alleged, was, however, not forwarded to the authority concerned by the Officer Commanding/Officer Second in Command.

3. The petitioner made representations seeking reconsideration of his case and reinstatement on the original post of Leading-Hand (non-technical) after regularisation of period of his absence by granting leave without pay. These representations were duly considered by the authorities concerned but the same were rejected vide letters dated 14.11.1999, 2.2.1999 and 22.5.1999. The petitioner in the circumstances, approached this Court with a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ/writs of certiorari or mandamus and/or any other writ, rule, order or direction setting aside the order of his discharge from service and for grant of consequential reliefs.

4. The plea of the respondent is that the petitioner was discharged from service on his own request. It is claimed that on his first application seeking to resign from service, in the course of interview, he was advised to withdraw his notice for resignation. He, however, persisted with his request and consequently he was required to submit a fresh notice of resignation and on his so doing, he was discharged from service with effect from 15.12.1998. The respondent refutes the allegation that the petitioner was forced to submit the applications for resignation as alleged. According to the respondent, the petitioner had made the said applications of his free volition without any kind of pressure. It is denied that the petitioner had made any application seeking withdrawal of his application for resignation before the order for his discharge with effect from 15.12.1998 was passed and communicated to him on 9.12.1998.

5. We have heard the parties.

6. Admittedly, for specialised treatment of his mental ailment, the petitioner was got admitted at 155, Base Hospital, Tezpur, Assam. He responded to the treatment and was eventually discharged from the hospital on 14th July, 1998. He reported back to his unit thereafter. He was to re-visit the said hospital in January, 1999 for review of his health condition. He, however, did not wish to go there for that purpose on the alleged plea of ill-treatment meted out to him earlier in the course of his treatment as indoor patient there. He is claimed to have apprised the authorities concerned of his unit of the alleged ill-treatment at the Base Hospital in the context of his plea for not being sent there again for review of his health condition. According to the petitioner, there was, however, no positive response to his such a request. He wanted to proceed on leave. The petition is, however, silent on the point if any formal application for grant of leave had been made.

7. In the context of controversy awaiting adjudication, it is not necessary to delve deeper into the allegation of the petitioners ill-treatment at the Base Hospital and his consequent reluctance to report back there in January, 1999 for review of his mental health condition as much before the date when the petitioner was required to re-visit the Base Hospital, he submitted an application dated 11.11.1998 seeking to resign from service with effect from 30th of November, 1998. In lieu of notice period, he sought to deposit three months pay. The petitioner was called for an interview by HQ 42, BRTF on 27th of November, 1998. On his persisting with his request for voluntary retirement, he was advised to submit another application. The record shows that he did submit a second application for his discharge from service, which was, eventually, granted and he was discharged from service with effect from 15th of December, 1998. This order of discharge was communicated to him on 9th of December, 1998.

8. Though the petitioner claims that on a second thought he had submitted an application seeking to withdraw his notice for resignation, before 15th December, 1998 which was the effective date of his voluntary retirement, he has failed to show it on record that any such application had actually been submitted by him before 15th of December, 1998. The petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 15th of December, 1998. An undated handwritten application in Hindi vide Annexure-6 with English Translation(Annexure-7) has been placed on record, wherein a request for reinstatement in service was made by the petitioner. This appears to have been followed by another application dated 6.4.1999 vide Annexure-8 with a similar request for reinstatement in service. The very fact that in his handwritten letter (Annexure-6) the petitioner pleaded for his reinstatement in service implies that he had already ceased to be in service after his discharge with effect from 15th of December, 1998 when this application was made. Though in both the said letters the petitioner made mention of an application seeking withdrawal of his request for resignation having been made before 15.12.1998, but no copy of any such application has been placed on record, nor there is any document showing that any such application had actually been submitted by him to his Officer Commanding.

9. Undoubtedly, before 15th December, 1998, which was the effective date for voluntary retirement in the case of the petitioner, it was open to him to have applied for withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement. The law on this aspect is well settled in view of Supreme Court Decisions in Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Another, JT 1984 (3) 480=1987 (Suppl.) SCC 228; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Another, (1998) 9 SCC 559 [LQ/SC/1997/1289] ; Power Finance Corporation Limited v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, JT 1997 (4) SCC 559; and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project Development India & Another, JT 2000 (6) SC 358 [LQ/SC/2000/725] . However, since as per record no application for withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement is found to have been made by the petitioner before 15th of December, 1998 with effect from which he stood discharged from service, his subsequent representations vide Annexures-`6, `7 & `8 are rendered inconsequential. These representations for reinstatement in service were appropriately dealt with, vide Annexures 2, `3, & `3A, by the authorities concerned and the same were declined for the reasons indicated therein. Though the petitioner alleged that the two applications vide Annexures `4 & `5 seeking voluntary retirement had been got fabricated by some of the officers of his unit with the help of subordinate staff, no material is made available to substantiate such an allegation. In the absence of any material in that respect, there is no basis to find that the requests for his voluntary retirement vide Annexures `4 & `5 were not voluntarily made by the petitioner. In view of the petitioner having been discharged from service as per his request in that respect, no case is made out calling for an interference with the impugned order of his discharge from service with effect from 15th of December, 1998. There being no merit, the petition is dismissed. No costs.