Ra Vinder Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.

Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances, it would appear that it is a case warranting our interference. It is seen that the appellant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the H 519 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} 2 S.C.R. A office of Superintendent of Police. On two occasions there was delay in dispatch of some communication. According to the explanation offered by the appellant, the Head Clerk was responsible for the delay for dispatch. It was on the third occasion that he did riot keep office copy of the leave application for earned.leave of the Superintendent of Police. In fact it is not the duty of the dispatch clerk but office/Head Clerk to keep the office B copy for record. These three facts were taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police and by giving insinuating threats or warning to the appellant, a sense of insecurity in continuance of employment was ' created. Obviously to get over the situation, he might have tendered resignation on January 3, 1991 but he had withdrawn it on February 2, 1991, ;>---- . C before the acceptance was communicated to him. On the same day the resignation was accepted. Under these circumstances, we thillk that it is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue in service. The.appeal is accordingly allowed. The acceptance of resignation dated February 2, 1991 stands quashed and D there shall be a direction to reinstate the appellant into service forthwith but without back wages .. ·Appeals allowed.