1 Serial No. 50 Suppl List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1142/2024 ADIL AHMAD BEIGH …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 16.05.2025 (Oral) 1. This petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of an order and judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar [“the tribunal”] in OA No. 971/2021 titled Adil Ahmad Beigh vs UT of J&K and Ors., whereby the OA filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as “Works Watcher” in the respondent Department vide order dated 12.07.2014. The petitioner joined in the department on 18.07.2014. While the petitioner was still on probation and 2 his services were yet to be confirmed, he tendered his resignation on 01.01.2015. Along with his resignation, the petitioner also made an application to the respondents for return of his original certificates which, on his request, were returned to the petitioner. Even the post which fell vacant subsequent to resignation of the petitioner was referred to J&K Service Selection Board for making recruitment. The petitioner abandoned the service after submitting his resignation and filed the representations in the year 2019 as a precursor to the filing of petition before the tribunal. Petitioner file OA No. 97/2021 seeking inter-alia a direction to respondents to allow him to join the duty. This petition was filed after a gap of more than seven years of the petitioner abandoning his services by submitting resignation. The OA was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.01.2022 with a direction to respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance with the order dated 05.01.2022, respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner had since resigned from the job and his resignation had been accepted. 3. This order of consideration was made subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in OA No. 97/2021 which OA has been dismissed by the Tribunal in terms of impugned order and judgment dated 22.04.2024. 4. Impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the relationship of Master and Servant which existed between the respondents and the petitioner did not come to an end for the reason that the resignation submitted by him was never accepted by the respondents. It is argued by Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, that 3 the petitioner has a right to withdraw his resignation at any time before it is accepted. 5. The Tribunal, having heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record, came to the conclusion that the voluntary resignation submitted by the petitioner on 01.01.2015 stood already accepted and that the petitioner had no cause to seek a direction to join back in the Department after a period of seven years of submission of the resignation. The Tribunal, thus, dismissed the OA. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is legally correct and does not call for reversal in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioner was on probation when he tendered his resignation on 01.01.2015. It is also not in dispute that after tendering his resignation and collecting his original certificates, the petitioner abandoned his service. The petitioner has placed on record a couple of representations made in the year 2015 and 2016 to substantiate his plea that he had been pursuing the matter with respondents. The respondents in their reply affidavit have refuted to have received those representations. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner remained absent from duties for almost seven years and then approached respondents for joining only with a view to generate cause of action to file a petition before the Tribunal. The first OA was filed by the petitioner in the year 2021 i.e. after a gap of seven years. That apart, it is a categoric case of respondents that not only the resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority but also 4 the post held by him was referred to the J&K Service Selection Board for making selection. Otherwise also, from the fact situation emerging in the case, it is evident that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned his service during probation and therefore was not entitled to join back or seek confirmation of his services after having remained out of service for more than seven years. Viewed from any angle, the conduct of petitioner is highly deplorable. He did not complete his period of probation, and submitted his resignation on 01.01.2015 i.e. about six months after his joining in the Department. He remained out of service and did not agitate the matter for almost seven years. Despite our insistence, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out a single document on record which would show that he ever approached the respondents for seeking withdrawal of resignation submitted by him on 01.01.2015. 8. For the foregoing reasons, as also for the reasons which the tribunal has given in its order and the impugned judgment, we find no merit in this petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 16.05.2025 “SABREENA”