14. When from the materials placed on record, when the
training had been imparted to the plaintiff by the bank
voluntarily by selecting him from the various employees of the
bank and when it is further noted that after the training, the
plaintiff had not been promoted on the footing that he had
undergone the training and not paid any special pay in lieu of
the special training and when it is found that the training had
not been given to the plaintiff as per the requisition of the
plaintiff and as above pointed out,, the terms and conditions of
employment entered into between the plaintiff and the
defendants' bank do not put any condition that the plaintiff is
liable to reimburse the training charges to the defendants'
bank, all put together, it is evident that as held by the
Courts below, the defendants bank is not entitled to demand the
training charges amounting to Rs.1.53 lakhs from the plaintiff
as a condition for accepting his resignation. Therefore, the
defendants' bank instead of accepting the plaintiff's
resignation by receiving three months salary offered by the
plaintiff in lieu of the three months notice and when
admittedly no disciplinary/legal proceedings are pending against
the plaintiff's on the date of the letter of resignation, the
defendants' company cannot be allowed to contend that it has got
the absolute right either to accept or reject the resignation
submitted by the plaintiff and it may act as it thinks fit and
choose and when no such power has been given to the defendants'
bank as per Exs.A1 and B3 as referred to supra, the Courts below
are found to be justified in rejecting the defence version that
the plaintiff is not entitled to get himself relieved from the
defendants' bank without serving for three months period before
accepting his resignation. When the option is given to the
plaintiff under the terms and conditions of the employment to
waive the three months notice by paying the three months salary
and when as above pointed out, no disciplinary or legal
proceedings is pending against the plaintiff on the date of the
letter of resignation, the defendants' Bank is liable to accept
the three months salary and relieve the plaintiff from the
service by way of accepting the resignation and cannot be
allowed to compel the plaintiff to pay the training charges as
putforth by it. It is thus found that the resignation letter
offered by the plaintiff is in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in Exs.A1 and B3. Therefore, the Courts below
are found to be correct in granting the relief of declaration
and permanent injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff.
