' Appellant while posted as Sub-Inspector Police at Police Station City Attock was served with two Show-cause Notices No, 538 dated 18.10.2010 and 677 dated 10.12.2010 for alleged negligence and thereafter another show-cause notice No, 1148 dated 01.11.2011 while posted as SI at Police Station Pindigheb for non arresting the unknown accused, consequently penalty of reduction to lower post and pay scale i,e, from SI to ASI was awarded to him under PEEDA Act, 2006 vide order dated 27.04.2012. Being dismayed, discouraged and dejected of the situation he tendered his resignation from service as protest on the same day i,e, 27.04.2012 against ill treatment and unwarranted behavior of DPO Attock. Instead of acceptance of his resignation the appellant was served by DP()
Attock with another show-cause notice No, 217 dated 21.05.201`2 for his action regarding not informing the department about resignation two months in advance. He submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 25.05,2012. Whereafter he was summoned by DPO who assured him about redressal of his grievances in due course without any mak! Fide or vendetta. In this backdrop, the appellant submitted an application on 29.05.2012 for withdrawal of his resignation but it was kept pending till 12.11.2012 when the said DPO Attock was transferred, however on the same day before relinquishing the charge of his office he passed the impugned order and accepted the resignation of appellant after a span of six months.
2. The appellant being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 12.11.2012 preferred an appeal before Muhammad Zubair RPO Rawalpindi Region who asked the DPO Attock vide letter No,.
HC(E)/2013/4530 dated 06.03.2013 to consider the matter regarding acceptance of resignation of appellant afresh after examining all pros and cons while observing as under.
"The appeal of Ex-ASI Safdar Khan No, 997/R of your district has been considered at length. In the prima-facie, the appellant tendered his resignation without adopting proper procedure just in reaction of his punishment of reduction in rank. According to the instructions when a resignation was not tendered voluntarily and it tendered in pressure it liable to be reviewed."
' But surprisingly, the appeal was rejected by his successor RPO Rawalpindi Region vide his order dated 25.04.2013. In the given situation appellant opted to file an appeal before IGP, Punjab against both the impugned orders but he was asked to file the appeal before proper forum, hence this service appeal.
3. According to learned counsel for the appellant it is settled principle of law that resignation can be withdrawn or recalled before its acceptance by competent authority. But in this case appellant has been deprived of his legal right to withdraw the resignation before its acceptance. It is evident that resignation was tendered by the appellant on account of compelling circumstances and thereafter withdrawn in due course on 29.05.2012 but on account of some visible vendetta it was kept pending and later on accepted by DPO Attock after about six months on the day when he was transferred from district Attock. Learned counsel also pointed out behavior of two RPOs of Rawalpindi Region, where the earlier one asked the DPO vide letter dated 06.03.2013 to reconsider the matter of acceptance of resignation of appellant in view of its specific backdrop but the successor RPO rejected the appeal of appellant without looking into the circumstances under which the resignation was tendered.
4. Learned District Attorney on the other hand refuted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and termed the version of the appellant regarding withdrawal of resignation as a concocted story which is after thought and not liable to be considered. According to him an officer like appellant is not entitled to any relief, particularly, when his appeal is barred by time.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. It is transpired from record that after rejection of his appeal by the RPO Rawalpindi Region on 25.04.2013, the appellant filed appeal to IGP, Punjab at his earliest on 05.05.2013. However, the IGP, Punjab kept it pending for a couple of months and thereafter directed the appellant to approach the proper forum belatedly. So, I find the delay in filing the install it appeal not intentional.
Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is accepted and delay in filing of the appeal, which was beyond his control is condoned.
7. Admittedly, the appellant tendered his resignation on 27.04.2012 on account of compelling circumstances when as an outcome of three show-cause notices served upon him, a penalty of reduction to lower post and pay scale was imposed upon him under PEEDA Act, 2006 without specifying its period. The mindset of appellant in the said situation was rightly noticed by RPO Rawalpindi vide his letter dated 06.03.2013 to DPO Attock during pendency of appeal of appellant by observing that: "The appeal of Ex-ASI Safdar Khan No, 997/R of your district has been considered at length. In the prima-facie, the appellant tendered his resignation without adopting proper procedure just in reaction of his punishment of reduction in rank. According to the instructions when a resignation was not tendered voluntarily and it tendered in pressure it liable to be reviewed."
' Evidently, resignation tendered by a dismayed, discouraged and dejected police officer under compelling circumstances cannot be considered as voluntarily tendered resignation. Rather it was an outcome of the situation which forced a police officer to lodge his protest who already had earned a good name for the department. It is further an admitted fact that instead of acceptance of his resignation dated 27.04.2012 he was served with another show-cause notice No, 217 dated 21.05.2012 by the DPO and when he submitted its reply on 25.05.2012, he was summoned by the said authority and on account of contents of reply to the show-cause notice he was assured for redressal of his grievances. Consequently in this backdrop he submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 29.05.2012. It is totally false to consider it a concocted or after thought assertion. Because the factum of filing an application for withdrawal of resignation is quite mentioned in the departmental appeal, submitted before RPO Rawalpindi. The act of Respondent No, 1 to keep the matter of resignation of appellant and thereafter its withdrawal pending till the day of his transfer is reflecting mala fide on his part. He decided fate of both the resignation of the appellant and application for its withdrawal after about six months of its happening. Similarly, the view point of RPO Rawalpindi expressed in his order dated 25.04.2013 is quite inconsistent with the view point of his predecessor who passed the . Order dated 06.03,2013. Resultantly, in the circumstances when the appellant had moved an application for withdrawal of his resignation before its acceptance, there was no legal justification to accept his resignation after a long wait of about six months. On account of visible vendetta and mala fide both the impugned orders have been found not C sustainable in the eye of law hence set aside while allowing the appeal and the resignation tendered by the appellant is deemed to be withdrawn from the date i,e, 27.04.2012 when it was tendered. He be reinstated into service and the intervening period is to be treated as leave of the kind due.