PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK versus P.K. MITTAL

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 612 · Decided: 13-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK 
v. 
P.K. MITTAL 
FEBRUARY 13, 1989 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
~ 
Labour and Services: Punjab National Bank Service Regulation 
No. 20(2): . Withdrawal of resignation letter-Effect of-Whether bank 
entitled to accept resignation from an earlier date. 
C 
Civil Services: Resignation by employee-Withdrawal of-
Permissibility and effect of. 
Clause (2) of Regulation 20 of the Service Regulations of the 
Punjab National Bank lays down that no officer shall resign from the 
service of the bank otherwise than on the expiry of three months from 
D the service on the hank of a notice in writing of such resignation. The 
r-roviso thereto empowers the competent authority to reduce the period 
of three months or remit the requirement of notice. 
The respondent, a permanent officer of the bank, made an appli-
-.; 
cation on 21st .January 1986, purporting to resign from the service with 
E effect from 30th June, 1986. He, however, received a letter from the 
bank on 7th February, 1986 informing him that his resignation letter 
had been accepted by the competent authority with immediate effect by 
waiving the condition .of notice. 
He thereupon filed a writ petition in the Jligh Court challenging ~ "\-
. F the validity of the purported acceptance of his resignation with effect 
, 
from 7th February, 1986 and for a direction to consider him as in 
service up to 30th June, 1986. Thereafter, on 15th April, 1986 he wrote 
another letter to the Bank purporting to withdraw the resignation letter 
dated 21st January, 1986. 
G 
The High Court held that the petitioner's resignatioin letter would 
have become effective only on the 30th June, 1986, that under the 
f~ 
Regulations there was no jurisdiction whatever in the competent autho-
rity to determine his service earlier than that and that until the resigna-
tion became effective on 30th ,June, 1986 he had a right to withdraw the 
same. Consequently, it quashed the order dated 7th February, 1986 and 
H declared that the petitioner continued to be in service with the bank. 
612 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. P.K. MITTAL 
613 
·+ 
, . In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant 
that ·Regulation 20(2) provided for a notice to the ~;,.,ployer only in 
A 
order to protect the employer's interests, that .its requ!rements.could, 
therefore, be waived by the employer if it so desired unilaterally, that 
~ 
under the proviso to clause (2) it was competent for the bank to waive 
any notice at all and to accept the resignation witlJ immediate effect or 
--1' 
with effect from such other date as the bank may consider appropriate. 
B 
I 
,., 
... 
Dismissing th~ appea!, 
~)-
.,, 
HELD: l. Until the resignation becomes effective ''" the terms of 
the letter read with Service Regulation 20 of the Punjab National Bank, 
I 
it is open to the employee, on general principles, to withdraw his letter 
of resignation. [619C] 
c 
-..,, 
Raj Kumar v. Union of India, [1968] 3 SCR 857; Union of India 
v. Copa/ Chandra Misra, [1978] 3 SCR 12 and Bairam Gupta.v. Union 
of India, [1987] Suppl. SCC 228. 
D 
2. Clause (2) of Regulation 20 makes it incumbent on an officer of 
the hank, before resigning, to serve a notice in writing of such proposed 
resignation. The clause also makes it clear that the resignation will not 
~ 
l>e effective otherwise than on the expiry of three months from the 
service of such notice. [616H; 617AI 
E 
3. What the proviso to clause (2) contemplates is that in a case 
where the employee desires that his resignation should be effective even 
before the expiry of the period of three months or without notice being 
given by him, the hank may consider such a request and waive the 
->t 
period or requirement of notice if it considers it lit to do so~ It does not 
empower the hank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect 
F 
from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation 
effective under the terms of the resignation. In the instant case, the 
employee had not requested the hank to reduce the period of notice or to 
waive the requirement of notice. [617F; 6I8G I 
' 
4. There are two ways of interpreting clause (2). One is that the 
G 
~1x 
resignation of an employee from service being a voluntary act on his 
. ·• 
part he is entitled to choose the date with effect from which his resigna-
lion wood he effective and give a notice to the hank accordingly. The 
only restriction is that the proposed d

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