Viki Deep Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his prayer for withdrawal of his resignation and for permitting him to resume his services.

¶28

4. The petitioner, herein, who was an employee of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (now Assam Gramin Bank), on being transferred in the month of February, 2020 to Golaghat Region, posting him to Rajagaon Branch, which was projected to be around 155 kms, from his home and situated in a remote area, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities, praying for cancelation of the said order of transfer.

¶29

5. The respondent authorities having not entertained the prayer of the petitioner, the petitioner vide a communication dated 28.07.2020, proceeded to

¶30

Page No.# 3/6

¶31

intimate the respondents that he would not be continuing in his services, w.e.f. 31.10.2020, due to personal health issues and unavoidable family responsibilities. The said communication was so issued, invoking the provisions of Clause 10.1(b) of the Assam Gramin Bikash Bank Service Regulation Act, 2010.

¶32

6. The respondent authorities on receipt of the notice from the petitioner, processed the same and vide communication dated 20.10.2020, the petitioner was directed to appear for an Exit Interview, scheduled on 21.10.2020. In the said communication, it was further highlighted that the competent authority of the Bank had accepted his resignation.

¶33

7. Thereafter, vide communication dated 22.10.2020, the Regional Manager of the Bank intimated the Branch Head of the Rajagaon Branch of the Bank that the competent authority had accepted the resignation of the petitioner, however, subject to the condition that no liability should remain unrealized before release of the petitioner from the service of the Bank and the petitioner is to surrender his Bank’s identity Card and Health Card, if so issued. The Branch Head was also advised to issue formal release order to the petitioner on fulfillment of the above conditions on or after 31.10.2020. Accordingly, the Branch Head, on completion of the procedure as mandated in the communication dated 22.10.2020, proceeded to release the petitioner and the same was communicated to the Regional Manager of the Bank by the Branch Head, vide a communication dated 31.10.2020. In the said communication, it was highlighted that the petitioner was released from the Bank on 31.10.2020 at the end of business hours after surrender of his Bank Identity Card and Health Cards. It was also certified therein, that the petitioner had no liability in the Bank as on

¶34

Page No.# 4/6

¶35

31.10.2020. The resignation of the petitioner accordingly, is found to have been accepted. After the acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation by the competent authority and his consequential release from the services of the Bank effected on 31.10.2020, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.11.2020 to the Regional Manager of the Golaghat Regional Office of the Bank to revoke the release of the petitioner from his services in the Bank and to grant another opportunity to him to continuously serve the organization. The said representation was followed by further communications. However, the respondent Bank had not accepted the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation.

¶36

8 . In the affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, it was highlighted that the resignation of the petitioner was in pursuance to a 3 (three) months’ notice issued by him in the matter. The matter was processed and the competent authority having accepted the resignation of the petitioner and he being subsequently, released from the services of the Bank, it was projected that the resignation having been effected, the same was not permissible to be permitted to be withdrawn.

¶37

9. I have heard Mr. A Ganguly, learned Standing counsel, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank.

¶38

10. Mr. Ganguly, learned Standing counsel, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank had reiterated the contentions raised by the respondent Bank in the affidavit.

¶39

11. On a perusal of the materials brought on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had duly submitted, without any conditions being attached thereto, a notice on 28.07.2020, intimating the competent authority of the Bank that he

¶40

Page No.# 5/6

¶41

shall not be continuing in his services after 3 (three) months or 90 (ninety) days, w.e.f. 01.08.2020. It was further stipulated that he shall be not continuing in his services effectively, w.e.f. 31.10.2020, due to personal health issues and unavoidable family problems.

¶42

12. As noticed hereinabove, the said notice submitted by the petitioner was processed by the authorities of the respondent Bank and the same on being accepted by the competent authority of the Bank, steps were initiated for release of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is found to have been released from the services of the Bank in acceptance of his resignation, w.e.f. 31.10.2020.

¶43

13. It is only after the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner and his consequential release from the services of the Bank that the petitioner had submitted representations for revoking his release from the Bank and for permitting him to continue in his services.

¶44

14. It is a settled position of law that a resignation submitted, would be permissible to be so withdrawn only, till the same is accepted by the competent authority, when such acceptance is mandated.

¶45

15. In the case on hand, from the materials brought on record, the resignation of the petitioner was mandated to be accepted by the competent authority before the same could be said to have come into effect. The competent authority having accepted the resignation and the petitioner not found to have withdrawn his such resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority, this Court is of the considered view that the subsequent application submitted by the petitioner for resumption of his services, would not

¶46

Page No.# 6/6

¶47

mandate any acceptance and accordingly, the Bank authorities had not committed any error in not considering the said representations preferred by the petitioner.

¶48

16. This Court in view of the above discussions hold that the resignation of the petitioner had become effective on the same being accepted by the competent authority and thereafter, on the petitioner being released from his services, w.e.f. 31.10.2020. Accordingly, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate any acceptance and the same stands rejected.

¶49

17. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Viki Deep Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viki Deep Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitul Medhi Vs Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Sri Bhagya Deka Vs the Government of Assam and Ors.

Ranjit Boro and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sanjib Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sanjib Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Suman Mazumdar Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.