P. KASILINGAM versus P.S.G. COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 08-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
490 
P. KASILINGAM 
v. 
P.S.G. COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY 
January S, 1981 
[Y. V. CIIANDRACHUD, C.J., A. P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.J 
The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, sections 20, 22, 
39 and 40, scope of-Competence of the Governrncnt in 
dealing 
with 
an 
appeal under section 20 of the Act to come to its own conclusoion and even -f 
contrary to tire findings of the enquiry officer-Rules of natural justice as 
enjoined by section 39 of the Act must be followed by the Government while 
disposing of an appeal in a disciplinary proceeding-While adjudicating upon 
the claim to payment of back wage.r the employer is entitled as a matter of 
law to adjustment of equities between the parties by an account being taken 
of the &alaT)' earned by the discharged employee elsewher,e-Constitution 
of 
India, Article 226, writ of certiorari, intention behind, issuance of. 
D 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Government 
for 
E 
F 
G 
adjudication of the claim for back wages·, the Court~ 
HELD: {!). The manner in which the letter of resigr1ation was obtained 
from the appellant together with the letter of apology, just before the depart-
mental enquiry was to commence suggests that they were integral parts of the 
same transaction. It was somewhat unusual for a delinquent officer 
to 
be 
called to the residence of the Correspondent of the College along with 
the 
Principal and to have the two documents signed by him, as a condition for 
dropping the enquiry. The submission of letter of apology, which 
amounted 
lo an admission of guilt, along with the uru:onditional letter of resignation, was 
part of a deal between the management and the appellant. 
It was meant to 
act as an inducement for the enquiry not to be proceeded ·with. The manage-
ment wanted to dispense with tho services of the appellant. The Government 
was, therefore, justified in holding that if the appellant placed in such circums-
tances submitted his resignation, it would not necessarily 
give 
rise 
to 
an.....,.._ 
inference that his act in doing so was voluntary. The Government in dealing - \ 
with an apreal under section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Privat<l Colleges (Regula-
tion) Act, 1976 was, at any .rate, 
entitled 
to 
come 
to that conclusion. 
[494C-F] 
(2) It is open to a Government servant to make his resignation operative 
from a future date and to withdraw such resignation. bef,>re its 
acceptance. 
The services of a Government servant normally stand terminat:ed from 
the 
date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, 
unless there is any law or statutocy rule governing the conditions of service 
to tbe contrary. There is no reason why the same principle should not be 
applicable to the case of any other employee. (497 ErFJ 
H 
Rai Kumar v. Union of India, (1968] 3 SCR 857, followed. 
Union of ~ndia v. Shri Gopal Chandra Misra & Anr., (1978] 3 SCR 12, 
distinguished. 
.. 
t 
• 
) 
J 
1 
P KASILINGAM V. P.S.G. COLLEGE 
491 
(3) Ordinarily the Government must, in all cases, before it comes to a 
contrary conclusion, as a matter of course, give the parties the opportunity of 
making their representations before taking a decision. In the instant case, the 
Government acted in breach of the rule of natural justice inasmuch as there 
was on its part non-compliance of the requirements of clause ( 1) 
of 
sub-
sec. (2) of section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 
1976. Ho\vever, remitting the appeal in this particular case to the Government 
for a re-hearing would really serve no usual purpose inasmuch as 
(i) the 
charges levelled a-gainst the appellant were not of such a nature as would merit 
his dismissal from service, 
(ii) on the contrary, it could easily be visualised 
that even if the appeal were to be sent back to the Government, it would 
either exonerate the appellant or may let him off \vith a minor penalty. 
[497 F-G, 498 B, C-D) 
' 
(4) Sub-section (!) section 40 Of the Act makes deposit of 
arrears of 
salary and allowances upon reinstatement by the appellate authority 
referred 
to in section 20 of the Act a pre-condition to the preferment of an appeal by 
the management under section 22. Only when such an appeal is preferred by 
the management the Tribunal is invested with jurisdiction to make a direction 
under sub-section ( 1) of section 40 that the management shall deposit 
the 
arrears of pay and allowances within such time as it directs.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.