Allowed

Javali Gururajendra v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022WP/100464/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the unilateral acceptance of an employee's resignation after he was exonerated in criminal and departmental proceedings. The Court held that the resignation could have been withdrawn and quashed the acceptance order, directing reinstatement with 50% backwages.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Petitioner directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages from 08.02.2013.

Javali Gururajendra Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100464 OF 2014 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.JAVALI GURURAJENDRA S/O. J VEERANNA

¶10

AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE R/O. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL ROAD L B SASTRI EXTENSION KOTTUR

¶11

TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR,

¶16

BANGALORE 560027

¶17

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶18

THE GENERAL MANAGER (ESTABLISHMENT SECTION) KARNATAKA STATE ROAD

¶19

TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES,

¶20

K H ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR,

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶23

BANGALORE 560027

¶24

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC HAVERI DIVISION HAVERI

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-T. B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-INSTATE THE PETTIIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT TRAFFIC MANAGER (DEPOT MANAGER) WITH BACK WAGES FROM 27.04.2008 TILL REINSTATEMENT AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, MONITORY BENEFITS AND ALSO SENIORITY BENEFITS, INCLUDING WITH ALL BENEFITS FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO UNDER LAW.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is an ex-service man and was appointed on 03.12.2003 as an Assistant Traffic Manager in the respondent-Corporation and when he was working as Assistant Traffic Manager, a criminal proceeding was initiated by the Lokayukta for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

¶31

¶32

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶33

read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and simultaneously Departmental Enquiry was also initiated on the very same set of charges.

¶34

Such being the case, the petitioner submitted his resignation with the respondent-Corporation on 27.03.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted on merits in the criminal proceedings initiated against him and he was also exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the respondent-Corporation on 31.08.2012.

¶35

In the interregnum, the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 08.03.2012. Respondent-Corporation thereafter accepted the resignation allegedly on 31.01.2013 and the same was intimated to the petitioner on 08.02.2013 stating that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted in view of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings as well as the Departmental

¶36

¶37

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶38

Enquiry. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having withdrawn his resignation, respondent-Corporation is not justified in accepting the said resignation unilaterally and the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondentCorporation submits that the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted at the earlier point of time in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings as well as the Departmental Enquiry and the same is inconformity with the circular dated 05.10.1990 issued by the Corporation which deals with the procedure to be followed in respect of acceptance of resignation.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶43

He further submits that the petitioner having submitted the resignation and only after he was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings, sought to withdraw the resignation which clearly implies that the petitioner was the fence sitter and withdrawal of the resignation

¶44

is an opportunist.

¶45

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

Pending departmental enquiry and also criminal proceeding, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 27.03.2008 with the respondent-Corporation. The resignation of the petitioner was not accepted in view of the pendency of the Departmental Enquiry and also criminal proceeding. After the petitioner was exonerated on merits in the criminal proceeding, the petitioner submitted an application on 08.03.2012 for withdrawal of the resignation. The respondent-

¶47

¶48

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶49

Corporation after the petitioner was exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry on 31.08.2012 accepted the resignation of the petitioner though the petitioner had submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation.

¶50

The circular issued by respondent-Corporation which deals with the procedure to be followed in respect of acceptance of resignation specifies that wherever an enquiry or a criminal proceeding is pending, the resignation of the employee need not be accepted and the procedure to be adopted after withdrawal of the resignation specifies that where resignation has not become effective and the employee wishes to withdraw it, he may be permitted by the competent authority to withdraw the resignation.

¶51

In the instant case, the petitioner had submitted an application to withdraw his resignation and ignoring the same respondent-Corporation has unilaterally

¶52

¶53

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶54

accepted the resignation which is contrary to the circular wherein it provides for an option to the employee to withdraw the resignation.

¶55

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.45133/2014 disposed of on 12.01.2021 with reference to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner therein was entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance and relieving the petitioner on its acceptance becomes contrary to law and would stand vitiated and the petitioner therein would be entitled to reinstate into service and further held that the petitioner therein was entitled to 50% backwages.

¶56

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance as specified in the circular dated 05.10.1990 and relieving the petitioner on its acceptance is contrary

¶57

¶58

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶59

to law and stands vitiated. The petitioner is out of employment since the acceptance of resignation and is entitled for the monetary benefits flowing out of the order of reinstatement, however with 50% backwages with effect from 08.02.2013. Therefore, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.02.2013 passed by respondent No.2- at Annexure-T is hereby quashed.

¶62

ii. The respondent No.2-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and the petitioner is entitled for notional benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement, however with 50% backwages with effect from 08.02.2013.

¶63

¶64

WP No. 100464 of 2014

¶65

iii. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Javali Gururajendra v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javali Gururajendra v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangappa S/O.Late Ramappa Layannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Bhimavva W/O Siddappa Patath Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangappa S/O Shankarappa Lakkannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Tabasuma W/O Late K. Mohammed Sharif Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shivaji Ramu Kokane, Vs the Land Tribunal, Athani

Rajaram Ramu Kokane, Vs the Land Tribunal, Athani