Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Rai, was an employee of M/s National Aviation Company of India (Air India), a government company and 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. He joined the Indian Air Force in 1985 and later joined Air India as a pilot. In 2000, he submitted a resignation letter dated 17/06/2000, which was accepted by the respondents with effect from 01/06/2000. The petitioner alleged that the resignation was not voluntary but was submitted under duress and coercion from the Indian Pilots Guild, a trade union, and that the employer did not follow the proper procedure under the service rules. He sought quashing of the acceptance order and a direction that he be deemed to be in service. The respondents contended that the resignation was voluntary and that the petitioner had not been coerced. The court examined the facts and found that the resignation was submitted under threat of disciplinary action and that the employer had not conducted any inquiry as required by the service rules. The court held that the resignation was not voluntary and that the employer's acceptance was invalid. The court allowed the petition, quashed the acceptance order, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated with consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation - Voluntariness - Duress - The court considered whether resignation submitted by an employee of a government company was voluntary or under duress from trade union pressure. Held that the resignation was not voluntary as it was submitted under threat of disciplinary action and the employer failed to follow the procedure under the service rules requiring inquiry before acceptance. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Maintainability - The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a government company which is 'State' under Article 12, especially when the employee alleges violation of fundamental rights and service rules. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Resignation - Procedure - Service Rules - The court held that the employer must follow the procedure prescribed in the service rules before accepting resignation, including giving an opportunity to the employee to withdraw the resignation if it was submitted under duress. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resignation submitted by the petitioner was voluntary or under duress, and whether the employer's acceptance of resignation without following proper procedure was valid.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Order dated 17/06/2000 accepting resignation is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Resignation must be voluntary
- free from duress
- employer must follow service rules before accepting resignation
- writ petition maintainable against State under Article 226
- burden of proof on employer to show voluntary resignation when employee alleges coercion.
