2007 SCMR 792 (PLP)

Appellant/petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, dated 16-1-2003 which was fixed before this Court on 1-12-2003 and leave was granted in the following term:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that it is a fit case for the grant of leave to consider the effect of the withdrawal of the resignation tendered by the petitioner after lapse of a considerable time. Order accordingly. Operation of the order impugned shall remain suspended in the meanwhile."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 did not attend the office and perform duties after sending applications for withdrawal of resignations and remained absence for 71 days.

3. Be that as it may be, learned Service Tribunal had accepted the appeal by respondent No.1 with cogent reasons after application of mind as evident from the following operative part of the impugned judgment:-- "We have given consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that the resignation tendered on 2-3-1998 was withdrawn on 20-4-1998 while it was accepted on 2-5-1998. To our mind having tendered his resignation it would not have been appropriate for the appellant/judicial officer to perform judicial functions. There is no allegation that he remained absent in fact. The learned counsel for the appellant informs us that after the said event he has been practising at the bar. That being so we will allow the service appeal. The appellant shall be reinstated in service without any financial benefit. Also the intervening period from the date of his relinquishing charge and resuming the same shall be treated as kind of the leave due."

4. It is a settled law that a resignation can be withdrawn or recalled before its acceptance by the competent authority. This view is indirectly supported by the observations of their Lordships of the Indian Supreme Court in a decision reported in Jai Ram's case AIR 1954 SC

584. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but he can be allowed to do so, so long as he continues in service and not after it has terminated."

5. The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the following judgments: (i) Shanker Dutt Shukla's case AIR 1956 All. 70, (ii) Reichel's case (LVI) LTR (NS) 539, (iii) Muhammad Khan's case PLD 1958 Kar. 75, (iv) Ashfaq Ahmad Mir's case 1999 PLC (C.S.) 738, (v) Prof. Muhammad Ali Sheikh's case 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1535, (vi) Muhammad Rafique's case 1991 PLC (C.S.) 1040, (vii) Muhammad Salim Khan's case 1991 SCMR 440 and (viii) Abdul Jabbar Khan's case 1984 PLC (C.S.) 435.

6. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. M.H./R-25/SC Appeal dismissed.