2000 PLP 890 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J.

Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondent Ahmad Mumtaz Mustehsan joined Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commissioner (SPARCO) on 16th February, 1986. He was posted in petitioner's organization as Director, Satellite Ground Station,. SPRARCO, Islamabad when on 26th October, 1998 he tendered resignation from service with one month's notice but on 10th November, 1998 Director Establishment informed him that his request for acceptance of his resignation with effect from 24th November, 1998 on one month's notice was given due consideration but due to exigency of work it cannot be acceded to. Thereafter, an Appeal No.139(R) of 1999 was instituted by him before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad which was allowed vide impugned order whereby directions were made to appellants to relieve the respondent after making formal order of acceptance of his resignation from service within a week. Against this order present petition has been filed.

2. Mr. M. Javed Aziz Sandhu learned Advocate Supreme Court contended that respondent was looking after highly important Projects from the national point of view, therefore, competent Authority was not favourable to accept his resignation in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred upon it by Regulation No.21 of the SPARCO Service Regulation, 1989 but the Federal Service Tribunal had not interpreted this Regulation in its real perspective.

3. Mr. Ahmed Mumtaz Mustehsan appeared in person and controverted the stand taken by the petitioners. In nutshell his argument was that on account of unavoidable circumstances he was not in a position to serve the petitioners' organization, therefore, he tendered the resignation with one month's notice which they were bound to accept. We have gone through the impugned judgment wherein Regulation 21 relating to the resignation, of employees of SPARCO was considered thoroughly and interpreted correctly. It may be noted that tendering of resignation is a right of an employee to put an end to his service and the authority competent to accept the resignation is bound to process the same within the stipulated period of notice. It is well-settled that an employee cannot be compelled to serve an organization necessarily. However, his resignation can be refused to be accepted if any disciplinary action is pending against him or he is guilty for the charges of misconduct and to escape from the criminal liabilities he has tendered the resignation. In the general service laws no authority has been conferred upon an employer to refuse to accept the resignation on account of exigency of service of the employees. As in the instant case the petitioner without explaining the details of the exigencies have refused to accept the resignation of the respondent No.l, therefore, the argument being raised that services of the respondent were required to be utilized in a project involving national interest cannot be entertained in absence of any material. It is also to be noted that in such-like situation where the services of a skilled person are hired, there is no condition in the appointment letter that until the completion of a particular project the employee cannot resign from his service and if the employee accepts such condition then the employer can' show hesitation in accepting the resignation whereas in the case in hand there was no service condition nor any authority has been given to the employer to refuse acceptance of resignation, which cannot be termed to be lawful and sustainable legally. In view of above discussion we see no merit in this petition, as such the same is dismissed and leave is refused. M.B.A/C-1/S Petition dismissed.