RAJ KUMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                              [2009] 1 S.C.R. 659


--.;._                       RAJ KUMAR SINGH                              A
                                       v.
                           UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 443 of 2009)
                             JANUARY 27, 2009.                            B
                 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
 ...                          GANGULY, JJ.)

               Service Law: Removal from service - Writ petition - Plea
         of Employer-State that it was not removal but acceptance of
                                                                          c
         resignation - Employee denying having resigned and
         alleging that his signature were taken on blank paper -
         Dismissal of petition and Writ appeal by High Court - On
         appeal, Held: High Court rightly dismissed writ petition -
,...     Allegation of taking signature on blank paper since involved     D
         disputed question of fact, could not have gone into in a writ
         petition.

              Appellant filed a writ petition alleging his removal
         from service. Plea of respondent-State was that he was           E
         not removed but the same was acceptance of his
         resignation. Appellant denied to have resigned, and
         alleged that his signatures were taken on blank papers
 ;..     while he was in illegal detention. Single Judge of High
         Court dismissed the petition holding that the authorities        F
         had acted on the basis of resignation. Writ appeal was
         also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
             Dismissing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: The plea of the appellant that he has not given
                                                                          G
         voluntary resignation and the blank signatures were
~        taken from him, is unsustainable. There is no material on
         record and, in fact, it is not the stand of the appellant that
         he made any grievance about the aforesaid act before
         any authority. Whether he had signed the letter voluntarily
                                      659                                 H
    660         SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2009) 1 S.C.R.


A or signatures were taken on blank papers involves
  disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a
  writ petition. Single Judge and the Division Bench of High
  Court noted that the authorities have acted on the basis
  of the letter of resignation. That being so, there is no
B scope for interference in this appeal. [Para 5] (661-D-F]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 443
    of 2009.
        From the Judgment and final Order dated 23.02.2007 of
c   the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 261 of 2003.
       S.C. Paul, Resham Singh, Roopa Paul and Reema
    Chopra Satyendra Kumar for the Appellant.
       A. Sharan, A.S.G. Amit Anand Tiwari, Subash Kaushik,
D S.N. Terdol and Sushma Suri for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.
       2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by
E a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the
  writ appeal filed by the appellant. Appeal was directed against
  the judgment and order dated 19.5.2003 passed by the
  learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.3053of1996. Appellant's
  case in the writ petition and the writ appeal was that while
F serving as Rifleman in the Assam Rifles he was removed from
  service on the ground of desertion and that too without serving
  any notice to him as required under law and without holding any
  disciplinary proceedings. The respondent-Union of India took
  the stand that the writ petitioner and others got themselves
G involved in some controversies whereupon the writ petitioner
  was given punishment of quarters guard. Thereafter he
  submitted a letter of resignation which was accepted by order
  dated 18.12.1995 to be effective .from 29.2.1996. But before
  that date the writ petitioner deserted whereupon he was
  declared as deserter and notices were served on him along
H with others. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant was
     RAJ KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                661
              [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

not removed from service on the ground of desertion but on          A
the ground that he had sought for voluntary discharge from
service which was accepted.
    3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
was, in fact, no voluntary resignation and his signatures were
taken on blank papers while he was in illegal detention.            B
     4. Learned additional standing counsel referred to the
letter dated 21.11.1995 wherein the appellants clearly stated
that he wanted the resignation from service due to domestic
problem as there was nobody in the family to look after it. Three
persons including the appellant had submitted for discharge         C
from service at own request and the same request was
accepted on 23.11.1995 and the same was to be effective from
29.2.1996.
     5. We find that the authorities placed on record original
letter dated 23.11.1995. By order dated 18.12.1995, the DG,         D
Assam Rifles passed the order and accepted the resignation
on compassionate ground to be effective from 29.2.1996. The
appellant has taken the stand that he has not given voluntary
resignation and the blank signatures were taken from him. The
plea is clearly unsustainable. There is no material on record       E
and, in fact, it is not the stand of the appellant that he made
any grievance about the aforesaid act before any authority.
Whether he had signed the letter voluntarily or signatures were
taken on blank papers involves disputed questions of fact which
cannot be decided in a writ petition. Learned Single Judge and      F
the Division Bench noted that the authorities have acted on the
 basis of the letter of resignation. That being so, there is no
scope for interference in this appeal.
      6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the
appellant may seek appropriate remedy for declaration that the      G
letter was not voluntarily given. We have expressed no opinion
in that regard. If and when such remedy is availed, the question
has to be decided in its proper perspective.
     7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
K.K.T.                                    Appeal dismissed.         H