BANK OF PATIALAversusPHOOLPATI

                        STAT_B BANK OF PATIALA                                       A
                                   v.
                               PHOOLPATI

                            FEBRUARY 23, 2005

               [ARJJJT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]                               B


      Service Law :

       Resignation from service-Letter of withdrawal-Effect of-Employee
submitting voluntary resignation to be effective from a given date-Prior to          C
that date employee sending another letter withdrawing the earlier one-Bank
accepting the resignation and relieving the employee of its services-Later,
employee died-His wife accepting service benefits of her husband-Later she
filed a writ petition contending that the order relieving her husband from
service was illegal-Prayer allowed by High Court-Held, withdrawal having             D
not been accepted by the Bank, High Court's order not justified.

        Respondent's husband an employee of appellant-Bank, submitted his
resignation on 7.1.2002 requesting its acceptance w.e.f. ·1.3.2002. On
4.2.2002 he sought to withdraw the said letter stating that at the time of
sending the same he was ill and mentally disturbed. The Bank asked him               E
tc:- furnish proof of his illness, and stated that if he failed to do so, he would
be relieved from service w.e.f. 1.3.2002. The Bank received a letter from
the employee on 4.3.2002 reiterating the prayer for acceptance of his
resignation. The Bank relieved him from service on 5.3.2002. On 8.6.2002
the employee expired. The respondent accepted the service benefits of her
husband. Later, she filed a writ petition before the High Court pleading             F
that her husband continued to be in Bank's service and the order directing
t:tat he was relieved from service w.e.f. 5.3.2002 was illegal. The Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that as the
resignation was withdrawn much prior to the stipulated date of its
acceptance, the Bank had no legal authority to relieve him. Aggrieved, the           G
Bank filed the present appeal.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD : The factual position clearly shows that the employee had
                                       3~                                            H
    346                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A   tendered his resignation which was sought to be withdrawn. But the
    withdrawal was not accepted and subsequently there was reiteration of
    the prayer for voluntary resignation. The inevitable conclusion, therefore,
    is that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of
    appellant-Bank relieving the employee w.e.f. 5.3.2002 consequent upon
B   accepting his prayer for resignation. (348-G-H; 349-AI

          Union of India and Ors. v. Gopa/ Chandra Misra and Ors., 119781 2
    SCC 301; Bairam Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., (19871 Supp. SCC 228;
    J.N. Srivastava v. Union ofIndia and Anr., (1988) 9 SCC 559; Nand Keshwar
    Prasadv. Indian Farmers Fertilisers Cooperative Ltd. and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC
C   461 and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd., AIR
    (2002) SC 1341, referred to.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1363 of.2005.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2004 of the Punjab .and
D   Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11476 of 2003.

         G.L. Sanghi, Nalin Sangal, Deba Prasad Mohanty, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal
    and Anil Kumar Sangal with him for the Appellant.

         Raja Venkatappa Naik, Mrs.Sonia Mat?u, Vinod Bhaskar, Sanjeev
E   Sharda, Vijay Kumar Ravi, R.K. Gupta and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
    Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           ARIJJT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. /
F         Challeng~ in this appeal is to the correctness of a judgment rendered by
    a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the
    appellant-Bank was not justified in relieving Hari Ram, deceased husband of
    the respondent, from services of the Bank with effect from 5.3.2002 .

          . The factual background which is almost undisputed is as under:
G
           Late Hari Ram joined the services of the appellant-Bank on 9.1.1985.
    In the normal course, he would have retir~d on 6.6.2005. On 7.1.2002 he
    submitted his resignation to the Branch Manager of the Kungar Branch
    requesting its acceptance w .e.f. 1.3 .2002, which was received by the Bank on
H   8. l.2002. On 4.2.2002 late Hari Ram sought to withdraw the proposed
        STATE BANK OF PATIALAv. PHOOLPATI [PASAYAT, .1.)                   347
resignation. The ground indicated was that at the time of writing the letter       A
he was seriously ill, was suffering from fever, and due to the effect of
medicines he was mentally disturbed. He, therefore, requested not to give
effect to the letter. On receipt of the letter, appellant-Bank wrote back to him
saying that since he had indicated to have written the letter due to ailment,
proof of ailment and supporting documents were required to be filed. It was
clearly indicated that in the event of failure to submit the documents, he         B
would be relieved from the Bank's service w.e.f. 1.3.2002. No document was
submitted. On the contrary, another letter was received from late Hari Ram
on 4.3.2002 reiterating his prayer for accepting his resignation. The request
for resignation was accepted and late Hari Ram was relieved from the Bank's
service on 5.3.2002. On 8.6.2002.late Hari Ram expired. On 12.8.2002 the           C
admitted service benefits were accepted by the respondent. On 7 .10.2002 a
writ petition was filed before the High Court taking the stand that late Hari
Ram continued to be in service of the Bank and the order directing his relieve
from the Bank's service w.e.f. 5.3.2002 was illegal. The Division Bench by
the impugned judgment accepted the prayer.
                                                                                   D
      It was concluded that the resignation was withdrawn before it came
into effect, and the letter purported to have been received by appellant-Bank
on 4.3.2002 was clearly of no consequence. As the resignation was withdrawn
inuch prior to the stipulated date of its acceptance, the Bank had no legal
authority to relieve him w.e.f. 5.3.2002.
                                                                                   E
      Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-
Bank submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate effect of the letter
dated 4.3.2002, the factum that late Hari Ram never questioned the Bank's
action so long as he was alive and the receipt of the retiral benefits
unconditionally by the respondent.                                                 F
      In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that late Hari
Ram never intended to pursue his letter of resignation and had withdrawn the
same before it was actually accepted. The original letter dated 7.1.2002
clearly indicated that the same was to be operative w.e.f. 1.3.2002. There was
no acceptance of the same before 1.3 .2002 and, in fact, he was allowed to         G
continue till 4.3.2002. Therefore, jural relationship had not been snapped.
Merely because late Hari Ram had not questioned validity of the order dated
4.3.2002 that cannot lead to an inference that same provided validity to an
invalidity act.

                                                                                   H
    348                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A           It is a settled position in law that unless the employee is relieved /rom
    _the duty after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation,
    jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end.
     (See: Power Finance Corporation ltd v. Pramod. Kumar Bhatia, (1997] 4
    SCC 280). Though much stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent
     on this decision to contend that the resignation having not been accepted
B    prior to 1.3.2002, the jural relationship continued does not stand the logic.
     The undisputed fact is that after withdrawal of the letter of resignation, late    -
                                                                                        /




     Hari Ram was specifically asked to justify his claim that he had sought for
    resignation under mental tension. It was clearly indicated to him that in case
    of failure to justify the stand by producing documents, resignation was to be
C   ~ccepted. He did not choose to file the documents asked for and he again
     reiterated the request for acceptance of his resignation. Much stress was laid
     by learned counsel for the respondent that letter received on 4.3.2002 was not
    dated .. But the same is really of no consequence. The undisputed position is
    that the same was received on 4.3.2002 by the Branch Manager and was
    acted upon. The chain of events, as noted above, go to show that the Ia.st
D   letter which was received by the Branch Manager on 4.3.2002 was                in
    continuance of the earlier letter dated 7.1.2002. The fact remains that
    authorities wanted to verify the bona fii:les of claim that he had written the
    letter. under mental tension. In any event, during his life time late Hari Ram
    never questioned the legality of the Bank's action in relieving him from duty
E   w.e.f. 5.3.2002 by accepting his resignation. The admissible service benefits
    were accepted by the respondent.

          A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the
    link of the resignor with his office and tenninates his tenure .. This position
    was highlighted by a constitution Bench ·of this Court in Union of India and
F   Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors., (1978] 2 SCC 301, and re-iterated
    in 13alram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., [1987] Supp. SCC 228, J.N.
    Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr., [1998] 9 SCC 559, Na~d Keshwar
    Prasad v. 1ndian .F'armirs Fertilizers Cooperative ltd and Ors., (1998] 5
    SCC 461 and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development l~dia Ltd.,
G   AIR {2002) SC 1341.

         In the instant case the factual position clearly shows that late Hari Ram
    had tendered his resignation which was sought to be withdrawn. But the
    withdrawal was not accepted and subsequently there was reiteration of the
    prayer for voluntary resignation. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that
H   the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of appellant-
       STATE BANK OF PA Tl ALA v: PHOOLPATI lPASA YAT. J.]            349

Bank relieving late Hari Ram w.e.f. 5.3.2002 consequent upon accepting his A
prayer for resignation.

       The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The appeal
is allowed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed.    B