1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The petitioner states that he is an old patient of Tuberculosis and started suffering from that disease in 1958. At his request he was examined by the Medical Superintendent of Civil Hospital, Multan, on 5th of August, 1963, and was recommended light duty, for three months.

3. On 6th of August, 1965, the petitioner addressed an application (Copy Annexure D/1) to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, through the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, saying that since there was no light duty in the Police, he should be granted three months leave and be posted at Multan because of his domestic circumstances. In the end he said that if unfortunately none of these requests could be acceded to, he was ready to forego his twenty‑four years' service and the application without event may be considered as his resignation.

4. On 22nd of September, 1965, he sent an application (Annexure D/2) to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police saying that in view of the Emergency which had resulted from the declaration of war by India on Pakistan, lie wanted to serve his country and that he may be transferred to any District of the Range. By a mere coincidence the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, had passed orders of the discharge of the petitioner on 22nd of September, 1965, by accepting his resignation (Copy Annexure `E'). The period of his absence from duty was converted into leave of the kind due to him.

5. On 28th of September, 1965, the petitioner addressed another application to the Inspector‑General of Police (Annexure `F') wherein he protested against the acceptance of his resignation by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, on the ground that three months' light duty recom mended to him had not expired and that his re‑employment as typist would have had fatal result as he was suffering from tuberculosis. In the end he made a prayer for the cancellation of the order of the acceptance of resigna tion and requested that he may be posted to any District of the Range to relieve him of the mental worry.

6. The Inspector‑General wrote back to him by letter dated 17th of November, 1963 (Annexure `G') that "he could not be allowed to withdraw his resignation conditional to his resuming duty in a District of his choice". He received letter dated 25th of March, 1966, from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Multan Range (Copy Annexure 'H') intimating to him that his request for re‑instatement could not be considered but he was free to apply for re‑enlistment as a foot constable clerk in Muzaffargarh District. This letter had been issued as a result of memorandum No. 2332‑1 dated 23rd of February, 1966, from the Inspector‑General of Police to the D.I.‑G. of Police, Multan (Copy Annexure `1').

7. The petitioner applied for his re‑employment and he was examined for his physical fitness by the Medical Superintendent of the District Headquarters Hospital, Muzaffargarh. He was found unfit for service being a case of bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis. He was, therefore, informed by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, vide Annexure J/1 dated 18th of February, 1967, that he could not be re‑employed on account of his physical unfitness.

8. The petitioner thereafter moved the Department for grant of pension but this request was also rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resignation in this case was conditional and before it could be accepted, the authority concerned should have considered the whole of the application and find out whether or not the intention was really to resign. The petitioner had said that he should be given three months' leave and posted at Multan in view of his domestic circum stances. It was only in the last resort and most reluctantly that he expressed his desire to forego his service of about twenty‑four years. The contention of the learned counsel is that a conditional resignation is not a resignation in the eye of law and that, in any case, the authority concerned should not have straightway accepted resignation of the petitioner without giving thought to his request for leave for three months which had the backing of the medical opinion. The learned counsel also makes reference to rules 14, 11, Chapter 14 Volume II of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, sub rule (2) says that a Police Officer who gives notice of resignation shall not ordinarily be permitted to withdraw from duty until two months have elapsed from the date on which his resignation was tendered. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had applied for leave for three months and the authority concerned should have first dealt with his desire to proceed on leave and then considered within the next two months whether or not to relieve him. It is also submitted that the applications sent to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police and the Inspector‑General on 22nd and 28th of September, 1965, respectively, clearly stated that the petitioner was ready to be posted in any District in the Range but his applications were misread and he was informed by the Inspector‑General of Police that he could not be posted in the District of his choice. This misreading of the applications of the petitioner according to the learned counsel caused him prejudice and makes it clear that the authorities concerned had not paid proper attention to the applications sent to them. It is not said in the answer received by the petitioner from the Inspector‑General that there was any legal hitch to his re‑employment. The only reason for rejection of his application was that he could not be posted to the District of his choice which request had actually not been made in the application.

9. It is, therefore, clear that the case of the petitioner did not receive proper attention at the hands of the authorities. Reading the letter of resignation as a whole I find force in the submission of the learned counsel that it was a conditional resignation and could not have been straightway, accepted in disregard of what the petitioner had said and what rules 14. 1 lays down. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the acceptance of the resignation by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, dated 22nd of September, 1965, and the subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Inspector‑General and the Inspector‑General of Police in respect of the resignation of the petitioner.

10. It appears from the documents that the petitioner was found unfit "or employment and it is not possible for this Court to issue a direction the police authorities, to re‑employ him, in view of his failing health. The only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is that his case may be considered for grant of invalid pension from 22‑9‑1965. The petition is decided accordingly. Petition accordingly.