GAHC010104002020 2025:GAU-AS:4778 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3101/2020 Sri Tapan Kumar Dutta, S/o- Bhugeswar Dutta, R/o- Hukuta Chariali, Girls College Road, P.O & P.S- Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh, Assam PIN- 786602 …….Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industrial & Commerce Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 2. M/s DNP Limited, (A Government of Assam Undertaking) Head Office: Assam Gas Company Limited Campus, P.S- Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786602, Represented by its Director & Chief Executive Officer. 3. The Director & Chief Executive Officer, DNP Ltd. H.O.: Assam Gas Company Limited Campus, P.O.- Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786602. 4. The General Manager, (Tech) DNP Ltd, H.O.: Assam Gas Company Limited Campus, P.O.- Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786602. 5. The Deputy General Manager, (Tech) DNP Ltd. H.O.: Assam Gas Company Limited Campus, P.O.- Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786602. 6. The Dy. Manager (H.R. & A) DNP Ltd, H.O: Assam Gas Company Limited Campus, P.O.- Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786602. …….Respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal. For the Respondent(s) :Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Date of Hearing :22.04.2025. Date of Judgment :22.04.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appears for the State respondent on call. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing, inter-alia, the impugned provisional release order dated 15.02.2020 and the subsequent impugned letter dated 10.06.2020. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was serving under the respondent No.2 which is an undertaking of the Government of Assam, initially as Engineer (Mechanical) and later on with effect from 16.04.2019 in the higher grade of Senior Engineer (Mechanical). However, the petitioner being occasionally absent from duty since December, 2019, he was served with a charge sheet dated 15.02.2020 on the allegation that he is habitually late and irregular in attending his duties. Thereafter, on the same date itself i.e. 15.02.2020, the petitioner submitted a resignation letter and on the same date itself the respondent No.2 issued a provisional release order. However, later on the petitioner on 16.05.2020 submitted a letter to the respondent No.2 requesting him to rejoin his service with apology for his actions. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the respondent No.2 instead of revoking the provisional release order, by letters dated 21.05.2020 and 10.06.2020 directed the petitioner to refund 3 (three) month salary and to deposit the company’s equipments as he was no longer in the company’s service since 16.02.2020. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has provisionally accepted the resignation request of the petitioner subject to conditions and since the petitioner before issuance of the final release order has withdrawn his request for voluntary resignation made earlier, the respondent No.2 ought to have allowed the petitioner to rejoin the service and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent No.2 to treat the impugned provisional release order as final release order is illegal. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- i. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia reported in (1997) 4 SCC 280. ii. Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 314. 5. Per contra, Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that once the letter of resignation of an employee has been accepted by the employer, it will not be open to the employee to withdraw his resignation. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- i. Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1968) 3 SCR 857. ii. North Zone Cultural Centre Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in AIR 2003 SC 2719. 6. He further submits that letter of resignation dated 15.02.2020 was admittedly voluntarily tendered by the petitioner himself immediately upon receipt of notice of charge-sheet dated 15.02.2020. He further submits that the petitioner instead of replying to the charge-sheet, tendered his unilateral and voluntary resignation. He further submits that the petitioner has not cited and or invoked any rule and or provision whatsoever, governing the conditions of service and employment as made applicable to the respondent No.2, which confers upon the petitioner a right to be reinstated in service/employment after the resignation of the employee has been accepted by the employer and or has taken effect. He further submits that letter of resignation dated 15.02.2020 was processed and accepted by respondent No.2 on the same date by issuing the provisional release letter and therefore, the petitioner was released from service with effect from 16.02.2020 and hence, the subsequent letter of the petitioner withdrawing the earlier request for resignation is of no consequence. He further submits that it is abundantly clear that the resignation of the petitioner was unequivocally accepted by the respondent No.2 in as much as the petitioner was expressly barred from entering the premises of the office and plant of the respondent No.2 and only the issue of final release letter by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner was made subject to further conditions. As such, he submits that the petitioner was wholly and absolutely relieved from his duty with effect from 16.02.2020. 7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the bar. 8. It appears that after the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 15.02.2020, alleging that the petitioner is habitually late and irregular in attending his duties amongst others which constitutes misconduct, the petitioner on the same day itself submitted a resignation letter to the respondent No.2. Page 7 of 17 9. Apt to refer to the said letter dated 15.02.2020, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “To, The General Manager (Tech) Duliajan Numaligarh Pipeline Limited Madhuban, Assam. Sub: Resignation Letter Respected Sir, This letter serves as my formal notice of resignation which could be treated as the explanation towards the charge sheet (Ref. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/ON) placed, following the counselling and the verbal warning by Mr. G. Neog, Manager (C & M) in presence of Mr. P.J. Mahanta, Manager (Pipeline & SCADA) against me for: 1. Not acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company, 2. Habitual late/irregular attendance. 3. Negligence in performing duty. This formal letter of my resignation from Duliajan Numaligarh Pipeline Limited, Madhuban Could be treated as effective from tomorrow (16/02/2020) Please be assured that I had thought much about my decision, and my present views with my seniors point of view was misaligned so I made this decision as it was purely a career orientated one. Further, I want to express my gratitude for rewarding professional association during my employment with Duliajan Numaligarh Pipeline Limited which will be memorable for many years. Thank you for your courtesy extended to me, I trust that you understood this my final decision.” 10. Reading of the aforesaid letter, it appears that the petitioner has tendered his request for resignation from the subject post. It further appears that on the same date itself, i.e. 15.02.2020, the respondent No.2 has issued provisional release letter, which is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “DNP Ltd. (A Government Assam Undertaking) CIN: U51410AS20075CC008410 Head Office Assam Gas Company Ltd. Campus P.O. Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh PIN-786002, Assam Tel No. 0374 2801166 Website: www.dnpl.co.in GSTIN:18AACCD8810C 1ZY No. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/97 Date 15/02/2020 To, Mr. Tapan Kumar Dutta Mr. Engr (M) Sub: Provisional release letter Ref: (i) Your resignation letter dtd 15/02/2020 Reference above, we would like to inform that on the basis of your resignation letter dtd 15.02.2020 you are hereby provisionally released from the services of DNP Ltd. w.e.f. 16.02.2020 subject to the fulfilment of the following condition:- 1. Your have to pay the 3 month salary (PB + GP + DA) 2. You have to return all the PPE, office equipments and other official belongings issued in your name, if any. On receipt of the above, a final release letter will be issued. Page 9 of 17 However you will be barred from entering the premises of DNPL's office and plant until all the formalities are completed.” 11. A perusal of the aforesaid letter, it appears that the respondent authority has provisionally released the petitioner from service with effect from 16.02.2020 subject to fulfillment of the conditions:- “i) You have to pay the 3 month salary (PB+GP+DA), ii) You have to return all the PPE, office equipments and others official belongings issued in your name, if any”. It further appears that upon fulfillment of the aforesaid 2 (two) conditions, final release letter shall be issued. 12. Reading of the aforesaid letters, it is abundantly clear that the release of the petitioner is provisional and subject to issuance of final order. Therefore, the release of the petitioner from the subject post is yet to be finalized. 13. While the matter rested there, it appears that on 16.05.2020, i.e. after 3 (three) months from the date of the provisional release order, the petitioner requested for rejoining the subject post, which is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “To The Managing Director Assam Gas Company Ltd. Duliajan, Assam Subject: Request letter for rejoining job. Respected Sir, I, Tapan Kr. Dutta an old employee of DNP Ltd, as Sr. Engineer (Mech) writing to apologize and to request for rejoining the job. I resigned from the job unintentionally due to some issues for which I apologized and I am looking to join this job. I request you to kindly consider me for the job because of my previous hard work and performance I made during my employment. I assure you that now there would be so such interception and I will perform my duties with sincerity, devotion and more commitment looking for your positive response Your's Sincerely Tapan Kr. Dutta Sr. Engr (M) DNP Ltd.” 14. Reading of the aforesaid letter, it appears that the petitioner having realized that he resigned from the job unintentionally due to some issues for which he sought apology and requested the respondent authority to consider him back in his job. It appears that after receipt of the aforesaid letter, immediately the respondent authority by letter dated 21.05.2020 directed the petitioner to deposit the Company’s properties within 7 (seven) days, failing which necessary action shall be initiated. It further appears that thereafter, the respondent authority vide letter dated 10.06.2020 informed the petitioner that he was released from the company’s service on 16.02.2020 and as such he is no longer an employee under the respondent No.2 and further directed him to deposit the salary in lieu of short notice an advance taken from the company and deposit other items issued to him during his service in the company. Apt to refer to the aforesaid letters dated 21.05.2020 and 10.06.2020, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “No. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/126 Date: 21.05.2020 To Mr. Tapan Kumar Dutta S/o Bhugeswar Dutta Village: Hukuta Girl's College Road PO & PS Duliajan District Dibrugarh, Assam PIN-786602 Ref: Thus office letter No. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/97 dated 15/02/2020 Sub: Notice With reference to the above, note that you have deliberately failed to comply with the directions indicated in this office letter referred above to pay the 3 month last drawn salary and to deposit the PPE, office equipments and other companies properties in your custody as listed in the Annexure attached herewith. Your such intentional acts of non compliance with the said directions are contrary to the established rules, norms and directions and are tantamount to violation of all service rules and regulations which warrant both civil and criminal processes against you. You are therefore hereby required to deposit the company's properties as detailed in the Annexure attached herewith within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice. On your failure to comply herewith as desired, necessary action will be initiated against you according to the established law, which may also be noted. (G.C. Swargiyari) Director & CEO, DNP Ltd.” “DNP Ltd. (A Government Assam Undertaking) CIN: U51410AS2007SCC008410 Head Office Assam Gas Company Ltd. Campus P.O. Duliajan, District- Dibrugarh PIN-786002, Assam Tel No. 0374 2801166 Website: www.dipl.co.in GSTIN: 18AACCD8810C1ZY No. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/132 Date 10.06.2020 To, Mr. Tapan Kumar Dutta S/o- Bhugeswar Dutta Village- Hukuta Girl's College Road P.O. & P.S.- Duliajan, Dist- Dibrugarh PIN-786602, Assam Ref: 1) Your resignation letter dtd 15.02.2020 2) Our letter vide No. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/97 dtd 15.02.2020 3) Your letter dated 16.05.2020 requesting for rejoining the Company 4) This office's Notice vide ref No. PF/TKD/DNPL/15/08/126 dated 21.05.2020 Sub: Notice Reference above, we are to inform you as below: 1. As requested in your resignation letter dtd 15.02.2020, you were released from the Company on 16.02.2020 and as such you are no longer an employee of DNPL. 2. However in spite of repeated request from the Company you have failed to deposit the following- Salary in lieu of short notice & Advance taken from the company 1) Three month last drawn salary: Rs. 1,70,675/- 2) Travelling Advance: Rs. 35,000/- 3) Imprest Advance. Rs.6,000/- Other items issued to you during your service in the Company 1) Identity Card 2) Medical Insurance Card 3) Laptop (1 No.) 4) All the PPE, Office Equipments & other belongings 5) All the files which are in you custody You are therefore requested deposit the amount and return other materials as mentioned above within a period of 7 (Seven) days from the date of receipt of this notice. On your failure to comply, necessary action will be initiated against you according to the established law to recover the same. Sd/- (B.B. Baruah) Dy. Manager (HR & A) For GM (Tech), DNP Ltd. For Director & CEO, DNP Ltd.” 15. Thus, what transpires from the above is that the respondent No.3 has taken the stand that he has accepted the resignation request of the petitioner on 16.02.2020 and hence, the subsequent letter for withdrawing such request for voluntary resignation cannot be accepted. It is well settled law that until and unless, the voluntary resignation request is accepted by the respondent No.2, the employee is entitled to withdraw from such resignation request. 16. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. (Supra), paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- “7. It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the respondent. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently.” 17. Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Srikantha S.M.(Supra), paragraphs 21 to 26 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “21. In Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia a workman applied for voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme framed by the Corporation to relieve surplus staff. The Corporation vide an order dated 20-12-1994 accepted voluntary retirement of the workman with effect from 31-12-1994 subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, however, the Corporation withdrew the scheme. It was held that the order dated 20-12-1994 was conditional and unless the employee was relieved from the duty on the fulfilment of those conditions, the order of voluntary retirement did not become effective. The employee, therefore, could not assert that the voluntary retirement was effective and claim benefits on that basis. 22. The Court said: (SCC p. 282, para 7) ‘7. It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the respondent. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently.’ (emphasis supplied) 23. In J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India a notice of voluntary retirement was given by an employee on 3-10-1989 which was to come into effect from 31-1- 1990. The notice was accepted by the Government on 2-11-1989 but the employee withdrew the notice vide his letter dated 11-12-1989. It was held that withdrawal was permissible though it was accepted by the Government, since it was to be made effective from 31-1-1990 and before that date it was withdrawn. 24. In Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India (Shambhu Murari Sinha I) an application for voluntary retirement of an employee dated 18-10-1995 was accepted by the employer vide letter dated 30-7-1997 with further intimation that ‘release memo along with detailed particulars will follow’. The workman was actually relieved on 26-9-1997. In the meanwhile, however, by a letter dated 7-8-1997, he withdrew the application dated 18-10-1995, by which he sought voluntary retirement. It was held that the effective date of voluntary retirement was 26-9-1997 and before that date it was permissible for the workman to withdraw his retirement. The appellant was, therefore, held entitled to remain in service. 25. In Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd. (Shambhu Murari Sinha II), the view taken in Shambhu Murari Sinha I was reiterated. It was held that when voluntary retirement was withdrawn by an employee, he continued to remain in service. The relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end and the employee had locus penitentiae to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement. He was, therefore, entitled to rejoin duty and the Corporation was bound to allow him to work. 26. On the basis of the above decisions, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that though the respondent Company had accepted the resignation of the appellant on 4-1-1993 and was ordered to be relieved on that day, by a subsequent letter, he was granted casual leave from 5-1-1993 to 13-1- 1993. Moreover, he was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on 15-1-1993. The vinculum juris, therefore, in our considered opinion, continued and the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end on 4-1-1993. The relieving order and payment of salary also make it abundantly clear that he was continued in service of the Company up to 15-1-1993.” 18. Therefore, the issue that falls for determination is whether the respondent authority has accepted the resignation of the petitioner on 15.02.2020 i.e. prior to the petitioner’s request for remaining in the job in question. As noted above, the provisional release letter dated 15.02.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 is subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein. It is further apparent that until and unless, the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled the final release letter shall not be issued. That being so, until and unless the final release letter is issued, it cannot be said that the jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 has come to an end. Hence, as long as the jural relationship continues, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the resignation request. It is admitted position that no final release letter in the instant case has been issued till date. 19. As regards, the contention of Mr. Khanna that the letter of resignation dated 15.02.2020 was processed and accepted by the respondent No.2 on the same date itself by issuing the provisional release letter, the same is totally misconceived and fallacious. Further, the argument of Mr. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to the effect that the provisional release letter itself is final release of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the settled principle of law that emerges out of the decisions relied by Mr. Khanna, is that until and unless the resignation request is accepted, the employee is entitled to withdraw from such request. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are of no support to the contention raised on behalf of the respondent No.2, on the contrary it supports the case of the petitioner. 20. In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the action of the respondent No.2 in not allowing the petitioner to rejoin the service is totally illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition succeeds. Accordingly, the provisional release order dated 15.02.2020, the letter dated 21.05.2020 and the letter dated 10.06.2020 are hereby set aside and quashed. Resultantly, the respondent No.2 is directed to treat the petitioner in continuance service and give him the arrear salaries as per law. 21. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed. 22. It is needless to be clarified that the respondent No.2 is at liberty to proceed with the charge-sheet in question in accordance with law, if so advice. JUDGE Comparing Assistant