Find a Lawyer

Case No. 271 of 1975, decided on 7th July 1976

‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal‑Contention that appellant merely protested against prevalent malpractices and corruption in Departments and never intended to resign and his resignation was as such conditional and under protest which ought not to have been accepted‑Held, whatever impelling reasons fact remained of appellant having tendered his resignation and Department having accepted same dropping dis ciplinary action against him though charges against him stood proved Resignation validly accepted‑Even otherwise appeal barred by time.

).‑The appellant, Junior Clerk, joined the Highway Department on 14‑1‑65. He was posted in Highway Sub‑Division No. 1 Lahore. On 24th April 1974, be was transferred from Lahore to Sheikhu pura, but on 4th of May, 1974 he proceeded on leave. According to appellant he was transferred from Lahore as a penal measure as he had been making representations to the higher authorities, complaining against local officers for the embezzlement, corruption, mal practices etc. entailing lacs or even cores of rupees from the Government money. It appears that the leave was not sanctioned and the appellant was proceeded against for proceeding on leave without permission and also for certain amounts outstanding against him. Ultimately, on 4‑9‑74, the appellant tendered his resignation which according to him was conditional and under protest, in which he also reiter ated his complaints about embezzlement, corruption etc. The resignation so tendered was accepted by the S. E. Highways Circle Lahore on 21‑12‑74 with effect from 26th of April 1974. In view of his resignation the proceeding against the appellant was dropped although the enquiries established both the charges.

It appears that the appellant represented against this to the Secretary, Communications & Works who can 30th March 1975, after perusing the report submitted by the Chief Engineer, Highways to him observed that since both the charges have been proved against the appellant he should be removed from service instead of accepting his resignation. The Chief Engineer in his reply, dated 7th April, 1975, pointed out that since the competent authority had accepted the resignation and had conveyed the acceptance to the appellant and the enquiries having been dropped and also that the appellate authority has no power to enhance the punishment when none was imposed by the competent authority. Thus the direction was likely to create complications. On this, the Secretary withdrew his earlier orders and directed that if the enquiries had been finally dropped against the appellant, the resignation should be accepted from the date it was tendered. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the S. E. Highway Circle, Lahore on 28‑6‑75 issued a revised order, recalling his earlier order and accepted the resignation of the appellant w. e. f. 4‑9‑74, i. e. the date on which it was submitted and it was directed that the appellant will pay salary of one month in lieu of notice. Further the appellant was allowed leave from 26‑0‑1974 to 4th September 1974. It is against this order that the present appal has been filed by the appellant on 13‑8‑] 975. The appeal was time‑barred inasmuch u the impugned order was served on the 28th January 1975 and the appellant was required to approach this Tribunal by 28th of July 1975 at the latest.

We have heard the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that his resignation being conditional and under protest could not have been accepted. According to the appellant he had simply protested against the prevalent malpractices and corruption fn the Department and he never intended to resign. We do not find any force in this contention of the appellant. Whatsoever the impelling reasons, the fact remains that the appellant did tender his resignation, and in fact the Department had dropped the disciplinary action against him although both the charges against him namely absence from duty and outstanding dues against him stood proved. We cannot accept the contention of the appellant that ho did not intend to resign. In our opinion the resignation as tendered had been validly accepted. Even otherwise, the appeal is barred by time by 16 days. The appellant has failed to explain the delay adequately. We accordingly hold that the appeal is barred by time. Consequently, the appeal is rejected in limine on both the grounds, above.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.