Find a Lawyer

Cases No. 639/1026 to 644/1031, 658/1032 and 659/1033 of 1984, decided on 4th May, 1985.

‑‑‑Resignation‑‑Effective when acceptance communicated‑‑Taking over charge in absentia would not amount to conveying acceptance of resignation‑‑Patwaris aggrieved of behaviour of Assistant Commissioner agitating and submitting en bloc mass resignations‑‑Resignations allowed to be withdrawn by a number of Patwaris but same refused to others (appellants)‑‑Plea before Tribunal that acceptance was never communicated‑‑Contention that fact of their being relieved of their charge by taking over by respective Kanungoes in absence of such Patwaris was itself more than communication of acceptance of their resignations‑ Contention repelled‑‑Appellants further, held, discriminated in matter of allowing withdrawal of resignations‑‑Impugned action, in circumstances, held, neither an act of justice nor conducive to good administration‑‑Tribunal accepting appeal directing re‑instatement of appellants from date of resignations without any break in service‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellants.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Messrs Ghulam Murtaza, Muhammad Yusaf, Rana Maqsood Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Mubarik Ali, Imam Bakhsh, Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Assistant Commissioner, Burewala and Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, as respondents.

2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugned orders, dated 23‑5‑1983 and 30‑5‑1983 be set aside and their resignation, dated 23‑5‑1983, be considered to have been withdrawn and may be re‑instated in service, w.e.f. 23‑5‑1983, with full back benefits.

3. As the point of law and facts are identical in nature in all these appeals, the Tribunal will proceed to decide these cases with this one single judgment.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants alongwith other colleagues in the Department of Patwar, felt agitated/insulted/and aggrieved against the behaviour of Ch. Saeed Ahmad, the then Assistant Commissioner, Burewala. The Anjuman Patwerian started passing resolutions from 1‑6‑1982 onward when the behaviour of the Assistant Commissioner, was brought to the notice of the Anjuman by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner at one time issued certain notices in the names of Office Holders of the Anjuman Patwarian to show their credentials as to how they had been able to formulate Anjuman whereas the same was forbidden under the orders of Government as far back as in 1974. These queries and replies assumed the controversial situation, which culminated into certain unpleasant incident mention of which is in pare. 13 of their respective appeals and ultimately it resulted into a mass resignation of 71 Patwaris of the area en bloc. The matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari, Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi at the relevant time, now at Sialkot, to act as a Referee in the matter and to bring this impasse to an end. However, there is an order on record by the Assistant Commissioner, Burewala, Ch. Saeed Ahmad, which disclosed that on the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, he was pleased to allow the withdrawal of resignation of 38 of their colleagues but denied this concession to ten Patwaris including these eight appellants. All these eight appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, which according to the information given by Mr. Hayat Hashmi, A.C. Office, Burewala, have been dismissed on 11‑2‑1985. Hence these appeals.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representatives of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case very carefully with their assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has firstly submitted that the resignation only becomes effective when the same is communicated to a person who has so tendered his resignation. He has placed reliance on instruction No. 2 of Services, General Administration and Information Department's memo. No. SOXIII‑2‑96/59, dated 24‑12‑1959. According to him as none of these resignations were communicated to the appellants, therefore, the same will be considered as having been not accepted. It has been further submitted by him that the impugned orders passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner is discriminatory in nature without assigning any reason as to why these eight appellants plus two other, had been told that they would not be allowed to withdraw their resignations while 38 of their colleagues were given this privilege. He has also assailed the logic of this order, which according to him, was not only discriminatory but smacks of vindictiveness on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, who according to him was at daggers drawn with the appellants and might have thought them as ring leaders.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the learned Assistant Commissioner was fully competent to accept the resignations when these were offered to him, despite the fact that lot of allegations of malice were levelled against him, vide resolutions passed from time to time by the Anjuman Patwarian. He has further submitted that these were only wild allegations to grind their own axe and that too in a manner to flout the authority. He has further submitted that in fact the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived with regard to the allegation that the appellants were not communicated the acceptance of their resignations by the Assistant Commissioner, as he would be able to prove from the record that they were relieved of their charges, a fact which itself is more than a communication. It has been further pointed out that what the Assistant Commissioner had done, had done at the behest of the learned Deputy Commissioner who was a Referee of the choice of the parties, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, would be the best judge either to show that he passed same regular and independent order in this behalf or what he had communicated to the A.C., vis‑a‑vis this affair. He has prayed that in case it is proved that the appellants were not duly communicated the acceptance of the resignations then the final issue could be settled by summoning learned Deputy Commissioner who is still available in the country as he is posted at Sialkot.

8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the record so produced before me which is in two parts, one relates to the decision of the Deputy Commissioner who was accepted as Referee by the Patwaris and the Assistant Commissioner and the second relates to the taking over of the charge of their respective circles in their absence by the Kanungos. After going through both these documents one thing becomes very clear that the appellants were not properly conveyed the acceptance of their respective resignations which was a condition precedent to the finality of the said act. The method adopted by the learned Assistant Commissioner to take over the charges from the said appellants in absentia, through the agency of Field Kanungos, is open to doubt and it cannot be said with certitude that this would tantamount to convey the acceptance of their said resignations. While going through the proceedings of the arbitration so made by the learned Deputy Commissioner, I find nothing positive on the record to show how the case of these appellants was distinguishable from the rest who were allowed to withdraw their resignations and to continue in service. The observation of the learned Deputy Commissioner that the ring leaders be not spared, does not lead to irresistible conclusion that these were the ring leaders who were pin‑pointed by him. It seems that the matter was left to the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner against whom a lot of material has been placed on record to show that where‑ever the learned Assistant Commissioner went, there was always trouble between him and the Patwaris of that particular area. This being the background of this case, the argument that the appellants are trouble shooters, cannot be relied upon as there is no evidence on record to connect them with this charge.

9. The crux of the matter would be that the appellants have been discriminated without any cogent reason from their other colleagues, who also joined that agitation, therefore, to deprive them of their livelihood for good, would be neither an act of justice nor conducive to good administration.

10. The result is, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellants be re‑instated in service from the date of resignations without any break of service. However, they will not be given any pay etc. for the period during which the, remained out of service as they themselves have given in writing that they will not claim arrears of pay for the said period. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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