Chennai: Declining to accept the contention of a court office assistant that he had resigned his job only out of deep frustration and depression as he was allegedly ill-treated and required to do domestic work even on holidays, the Madras high court has rejected his plea to review the order accepting his resignation and terminating him from service.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Satish K. Agnihotri and M.Venugopal dismissed the petition filed by M.Mohammed Akbar Basha, which sought to quash the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, accepting his resignation and terminating him from service.
According to petitioner, he was appointed as night watchman in the court of judicial magistrate and thereafter promoted as office assistant on February 11, 2013. Later, he was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore. He was ill-treated and required to do domestic work even on holidays and to clean lavatory and other menial work. He became desperate and resigned. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, accepted the resignation and terminated him.
Thereafter, he sent representations to various authorities to review his resignation and reinstate him in service taking into consideration that he resigned only out of deep depression.
Pointing out that “resignation” means act of giving up or relinquishing the office, the Bench said the petitioner in his letter had in clear cut fashion mentioned that because of his family problems, he was willing to give resignation and prayed for acceptance of his letter. In the present petition, he assigns a reason that only out of depression and frustration, he submitted his resignation.
“This court on going through the contents of the letter comes to an inescapable and irresistible conclusion that the petitioner had submitted his resignation owing to his family problems, it is not open to him to take an altogether different stand that he had tendered resignation letter under depression and frustration.” The plea of depression was only a ruse to get over the predicament in which the petitioner was now placed.
There was no rule dealing with employment after resignation is accepted in relevant time and such a plea by the petitioner was not legally tenable, the Bench added.
