NAZAR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH, MEMBER.- The facts of the case are that the appellant was serving S.O.
And Station Manager, SITE, Sanghar in Pakistan State Oil Company and allegedly forced to tender resignation. Appellant filed departmental appeal to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 18.5.2002 which has not been responded obliging the appellant to file appeal before this Tribunal under Section 4 read with Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant who was employed in the management cadre as Accounts Officer on 1.7.1996. He stated that he appellant had since then been discharging his duties with full responsibility and had rendered un chequered, unblemished and spotless service. He also stated that his services were appreciated by the management from time to time. He pointed out that the appellant's explanation was called on 15.5.2002 in respect of gross financial irregularities and shortage in stock.
He was also relieved from duty by Mr. Mehar Khan Magsi. Appellant was called to the Mead Office on 16.5.2002 and his resignation was allegedly obtained under duress. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that immediately on next day i.e. 17.5.2002 he sent out telegram to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that his resignation dated 16.5.2002 was not of free consent and will. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that his forcible resignation cannot be treated as valid and legal as he was not even afforded full opportunity to submit his reply to the letter of explanation issued on 15.5.2002. He submitted that the three days' time was given to him to submit his explanation which was to end on 18.5.2002 but before he could render his explanation he. Was called to the head office and under threat of criminal action made to submit his resignation which was accepted on the same day. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in view of the illegal resignation obtained under duress, the appellant need to be reinstated in service. He also stated that the appellant was neither afforded any personal hearing nor any inquiry was conducted and requested that the case may be remanded back to the respondent/ for initiating de novo proceedings strictly in accordance with law. In support of his contentions appellant's placed reliance on rulings reported in 1992 SCM R 2135, PLD 1979 SC 835, 1984 SCM R 334, 1980 SCM R 148 and AIR 1978 SC 694.
2. The teamed counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and stated that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred and, as such, was liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents averred that the Divisional Manager (Retail) Hyderabad made surprise inspection to Coco,. S.I.T.E., Sanghar alongwith three other officers and observed serious irregularities, gross negligence and misappropriation of company's fund. He stated that the appellant was accordingly issued a letter of Explanation on 15.2.2002 but the appellant chose to submit his resignation voluntarily to escape criminal action. He contended that the appellant-s resignation was accepted and he was released from his duties. He further denied that the appellant's resignation was obtained under duress or threat. He also stated that the appellant had not submitted any departmental appeal and, as such, the appeal was not maintainable.
3. We have given due considerations to the submissions made by the two counsel and also perused the relevant record and citations. The facts indicate that appellant had tendered resignation. The question is whether his resignation was obtained under duress or threat or was it of his own volition. Appellant contends that this resignation was forcibly obtained after he was called to the Head Office on 16.5.2002, whereas the respondent deny that any duress was exerted on the appellant. The facts also indicate that the appellant wag issued a letter of explanation on 15.5.2002 and it is difficult to believe that the appellant did not submit his explanation. The fact that he was called to the Head Office on next day i.e. 16.5.2002 and his resignation obtained. The speed with which the resignation was accepted on the same day i.e. 16.5.2002 lends credence to the appellant's plea that his resignation was obtained with maia fide intentions. That is further strengthened by the appellant's contention that he immediately ,send telegram on 17.5.2002 to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 informing them about his resignation which was forcibly obtained from him. We, therefore, intend to believe that the appellant was forcibly asked to submit his resignation.
Respondent's counsel could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why criminal proceedings were not lodged against him for alleged misappropriation, fraud and embezzlement of funds. The other fact which gives some credibility to the appellant's contention is that before the expiry of three days' period given in the letter of explanation, appellant's resignation was secured which does not fit in the overall' scenario. The learned counsel for the appellant had in rebuttal made a plea that the case may be remanded to the respondents to initiate de novo proceedings strictly in accordance "with law and the impugned acceptance of his resignation allegedly obtained under duress is set-aside.
4. In view of the above discussion the impugned order dated 16.5.2002 is set-aside end consequently the appellant is reinstated in service. We also direct that the appellant may be proceeded against de novo. The question of back benefits will depend on the findings of the de novo proceedings which should be considered strictly in accordance with law and be completed within a period of four months.
5. As regards non-submission of departmental appeal contended by the respondent's counsel, it appears that the appellant had filed departmental appeal on 18.5.2002 which the respondent deny.
As such, the issue of filing departmental appeal is a controversial which should be resolved in the de novo proceedings being demanded by the appellant. No order as to costs.
6. Parties be informed accordingly.