Swarna Shukla –
Published On: November 12, 2021 at 19:58 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently imposed a fine of R.s 21,000 on a District Judge, who rejected the resignation of a Court clerk as his resignation was not preceded by a three months’ notice. On account of his failure to give a three months notice under Rule 4 of the Government Service Rules, 2000, he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry.
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar imposed the fine on the District Judge of Jalaun Suneet Kumar and directed him to accept the employee’s resignation, the Court observed that the rejection of resignation will amount to mental harassment.
The Petitioner, Khoob Singh was working as a Clerk in the judgeship of Jalaun at Orai in 2015. Thereafter, on being selected for the post of Stenographer (Railway Recruitment Board), he tendered his resignation on 17 July 2020 mentioning therein that since he has been selected on the post of Stenographer (Hindi) with the Railways, he may be relieved from the post of the Court clerk to join the said post.
The District Judge passed the impugned order dated 20 August, 2020, noting that under Rule (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Service Rules, 2000, as the petitioner had not tendered his resignation from service on three months notice, his resignation was rejected.
The Petitioner argued that he can’t be compelled to render services at the judgeship against his wishes and he informed the authorities before the examination and on being furnished N.O.C, Petitioner appeared in the examination, as well as, medical examination.
Thereafter, it was contended that proviso to Rule (4) clearly provides that the appointing authority can allow the government servant to resign without any short notice.
The Court observed, “An employee is entitled to seek the betterment of his career by applying in any Government organization. It is not the case of the Respondents that Petitioner had not informed or taken prior permission from the competent authority (second Respondent) before appearing in the examination. N.O.C was duly issued to the Petitioner for appearing in the examination.”
The Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner suffered harassment and inconvenience at the hands of a judicial officer, the petitioner is entitled to cost assessed @Rs. 21,000 to be paid by the second respondent within a week.