Lavlesh Kumar Mishra Versus The Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WA, 497 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 25, 2021

Law laid down:-

Writ Appeal directed against the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition filed against order passed by the respondent-Bank accepting the resignation of the appellant.

Taking note of the facts, if we consider letter of resignation dated 16.9.2017, it is found that this letter of resignation is unconditional one and without any kind of reservation and in fact it refers to Rule 10(1)(b)(i) of the Service Regulations and categorically states that “kindly accept my intention to discontinue my service further after three months”.

As per rule 10 of the Madhyanchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, service of a confirmed employee would get terminated/discontinued upon his serving notice of three months expressing his intention to leave or discontinue his services or resign. The appellant by letter of resignation dated 16.9.2017 made his intention known by serving the notice under the said provision, by not only referring to the relevant rule, but also by requesting for acceptance of his intention for discontinuation from service after three months. The letter of resignation was submitted on 19.9.2017 and therefore, notice period of three months was completed on 19.12.2017. Although the appellant has argued that he submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 31.12.2017, but in fact the respondent-Bank along with I.A.No.6661/2021 has produced record of these proceedings and copy of an application submitted by him on 19.12.2017 addressed to the General Manager (Administration), Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Sagar, wherein the appellant categorically stated that he had given notice of resignation on 19.9.2017 and requested that resignation may please be accepted from 19.12.2017. There was thus reiteration of intention of the appellant to consciously resign from service of respondent-Bank by submitting the letter of resignation with notice of three months. Two facts emerge from the facts of the present case, first that after submitting unconditional resignation vide letter dated 16.9.2017, the appellant did not ponder over the matter to reconsider his decision for withdrawal of the aforesaid resignation, within notice period of three months, which he did not do and second, that the appellant actually did not withdraw the resignation. On the contrary, on the last date of expiry of notice period of three months i.e. on 19.12.2017, he submitted a fresh application categorically stating that the notice period of resignation has come to an end on 19.12.2017 and therefore, his resignation may now be accepted. But the appellant thereafter by change of mind submitted another application on 31.12.2017 requesting to withdraw his resignation which could not have been accepted by the respondentBank because his earlier letter of resignation dated 19.09.2017 had already been acted upon and was lawfully accepted by the respondent-Bank. Howsoever this Court may sympathise with the appellant considering that he is an ex-army man, but the Court has to scrutinise the decision of the respondents in not accepting his request for withdrawal made on 31.12.2017 on the anvil of the law applicable on the subject. What cannot be lost sight of is that even if the appellant was having unstable state of mind when he submitted the letter of resignation on 19.9.2017 but all through the notice period of three months i.e. on 19.12.2017, when he had been working far away from earlier Branch and there was no repetition of any untoward incident with him in the intervening period, in the normal course, he is supposed to have regained his cool and stability of mind and if at all he wanted, he could have decided to withdraw the resignation within the notice period of three months, which he did not do.

It is a trite that a judgment for the purpose of precedent can be relied upon for the proposition of law that it actually decided and not for what can be logically deduced from it, for difference of a minor fact would make a lot of change in the precedential value of the judgment.

Lavlesh Kumar Mishra Versus The Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others