1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"Office order.‑Mr. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Ex‑Translation Officer of this Council is hereby informed that his application, dated the 14th December, 1982 withdrawing his resignation letter has been rejected by the Chairman. This Council letter of acceptance, dated the 8th December, 1982 of his resignation is also attached as the receipt of the same was refused by him. (Sd.) (Noor Muhammad) Administrative Officer." After this, on 20th December, 1982, the appellant submitted a review petition to the Chairman, in which he stated, inter alia, that the letter submitted by him on 2nd December, 1982 was merely a 15 days' notice of resignation and not the resignation itself: that since it was not possible for him to arrange and deposit the money repayable to him by Govern ment, he had submitted a letter on 8th December, 1982 withdrawing his resignation letter ; that, on 14th December, 1982, be bad seen the Chairman and prayed for acceptance of the withdrawal of his resignation notice : that be was surprised to receive the officer order, dated 15th December, 1982 informing him that his application withdrawing his resignation letter had been rejected and that his resignation had been accepted, with effect from 8th December, 1982. The appellant further pleaded in this letter that the Council's notification, dated 8th December, 1982 accepting his resignation was issued back‑dated on or after 1 `th December, 1982, with the mala fide intention of presenting the appellant with a fait accompli and making out the case that, since the. resignation had already been accepted before receipt of the withdrawal letter, the request for withdrawal of the resignation letter could not be entertained. This was rejected by the Chairman on 28th December, 1982. There upon, the appellant addressed a petition to the President on 4th January, 1983, which was forwarded to the Establishment Division for appropriate action by the Special Assistant to the President and C.M.L.A. on 14th January, 1983. Since there was no further development in the matter, the appellant preferred the present appeal on 30th March, 1983, before the Tribunal, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The appeal, being within time, was admitted for regular hearing by order of the Tribunal, dated 14th April, 1983. After final hearing on 10th January, 1984, it is being disposed of by this order. We heard the parties at length and perused the relevant documents, including the personal file of the appellant, the copies of the relevant applications made by him and the orders passed thereon by the concer ned authorities.

3. There is no doubt that the appellant had addressed a letter to the Chairman, Council of Islamic Ideology, on 2nd December, 1982, in which he had expressed his desire to leave the service of the Council and requested that his resignation may be accepted, with effect from 17th December, 1982. From the nothings on the relevant file, it is seen that the Chairman had ordered, on 2nd December, 1982 that the resignation may be accepted. But, this acceptance was not conveyed to the appellant because of the large amount of money outstanding against him, which he was required to repay before his resignation could be accepted. When this was conveyed to him and he was required to repay the entire amount in lump sum, as already mentioned, he submitted his note, dated 8th December, 1982, withdrawing his letter of resignation. Under the instructions contained in Office Memorandum No. 8/13/69‑FI, dated 30th January, 1970 read with O. M. No. 619/1979, dated 19th June, 1973,1 in case a Government servant withdraws his resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority, the resignation should be deemed to have been withdrawn, vide paragraph 2 (i) of serial 15 of Estacode, 1979 page

191. In this case, the appellant had, immediately when he found that he was required to refund the entire amount of over A Rs. 18,000, outstanding against him, before his resignation could be accepted, written to his department withdrawing his resignation. In view of the clear instructions of Government, the department were bound to treat the resignation as having been withdrawn. Their refusal, there fore, to do so is a clear denial of a right of the civil servant to which he is entitled under the rules and we can find no justification for the refusal of the department to treat the resignation as having been withdrawn.

4. During the course of the bearing, a plea was taken on behalf of the respondent‑department that, although the appellant did submit a note on 8th December, 1982 withdrawing his resignation letter, this note was received after the Chairman had passed orders accepting the resignation and, therefore, the appellant could not be given the benefit of the rule under which withdrawal of resignation before its acceptance has to be allowed automatically. We are afraid, we are unable to accept this stand of the department because of the simple reason that, in the eye of law, the acceptance of resignation cannot be treated to have taken place merely because the Chairman bad made a note to this effect on the application of the appellant or on the relevant file before the receipt of the letter withdrawing the resignation. From the depart mental file, as well as from the despatch register, it is clear that the notification, accepting the resignation of the appellant with effect from the forenoon of the same date, was not issued to the appellant before 15th December, 1982. The resignation cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been accepted earlier than this date. But, because the appellant had submitted his note withdrawing his letter of resignation on 8th December, 1982 and the same had been put up to the relevant authorities on the same date, we hold that it was incumbent on the relevant authority to treat the resignation as withdrawn immediately when the said note was received in the office. We are clearly of the view that there was no justification for the department to deny to the Appellant his right, to with‑draw his letter of resignation.

5. During the course of hearing, the stand was also taken that the notification accepting the letter of resignation had actually been issued on 8th December, 1982 but that the receipt of the same was refused by the appellant. The Departmental Representative could not satisfy us on the point that the order of acceptance of the resignation was actually issued on 8th December, 1982 but the appellant had refused to receive it. On the contrary, although the notification in question is, dated 8th December, 1982 it is seen from the relevant documents that it was issued to the Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press, Karachi, for publication in the official Gazette as late as 15th December, 1982. It was also issued on the same date to the appellant at his residential address. It is, therefore, not understood on what basis it was alleged that the receipt of the Council's letter of acceptance was refused by the appel lant. In fact, from the entries in the despatch register of the Council's office, it is seen that, whereas the Office Order, dated 15th December, 1982 bears the despatch No. 7355 the notification issued to the Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan bears a later number, i. e. 7361, from which it is clear that, irrespective of the question as to when the order accepting the resignation was passed by the Chairman, it was not issued for publication to the appellant before 15th December, 1982 which was much later than the date on which the appellant withdrew his resigna tion. The order of acceptance, therefore, becomes invalid, being con trary to the rules on the subject.

6. In connection with the issuance of the notification, dated 8th December, 1982, it was contended by the appellant that this notification was deliberately back‑dated in order to make out the case that the withdrawal of the resignation could not be allowed, since the resigna tion had already been accepted. To prove the point that the entire thing had been manipulated, the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the notification in question contained glaring mistake. It stated that the resignation had been accepted with effect from the forenoon of Thursday, the 8th December, 1982 when actually the 8tb of December, 1982 was not Thursday but Wednesday. It was argued that the mistake took place because the notification was not draf ted on the 8th of December but subsequently and, while doing so, the concerned persons made the mistake of calculating that the 8th of December was Thursday and not Wednesday. It is difficult for us, at this stage, to give a clear finding as to whether the mention of 8th of December, being Thursday was a bonafide mistake or it was a mistake caused by subsequent calculation at a later date, From the personal file of the appellant, however, we find that the Office Order of 8th December, 1982 which is marked as serial No. 208 has been given to a receipt, which obviously could not be any document other than the note of the appellant withdrawing his letter of resignation: From a cursory look at this note also, it appears that the original number given to this paper was not 209 but something else, which has subsequently been changed to

209. Considering these obvious defects in the documents in question, it would be too risky for us to take the view that the Office Order, dated 8th December, 1982 conveying the acceptance of the appellant's resignation, was actually issued on the same date. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any firm view in the matter but allow the benefit of doubt to the appellant and hold that the acceptance of the resignation of the appellant on 8th December, 1982 cannot be taken to have been actually conveyed to him on the same date.

7. Further to the above, it is observed that, in the written objections filed on behalf of the department, it has been stated against paragraph 12 that the office order and notification relating to acceptance of the resignation were given to the appellant on 13th December. 1982 but he declined to receive the same. From this, it is obvious that neither the office order nor the notification was issued to the appellant on the date given to these two documents i.e. 8th December, 1982.

8. In the light of the above facts and discussions, we hold that the resignation, tendered by the appellant on 2nd December, 1982 was withdrawn by him on 8th December, 1982 and the refusal to accept the withdrawal amounts to denial of a right to which the appellant was entitled. The withdrawal of the resignation having been made by the appellant before its acceptance, he shall be deemed to have been in service all the time.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is ordered that the appellant be re‑instated in service, with effect from 8th December, 1982 with all the consequential benefits of the re‑instatement.

10. No order as to costs. A. B. Appeal accepted.