' The decision, dated 23-1-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,
9. Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re-instatement in service was accepted.
2. The respondent was Officer Grade-Ill. He remained on sick leave upto 14-5-1979. He on 20-5-1979 made a written request for his transfer to Sahiwal and prayed in the alternative that if it was not possible, letter be treated as his resignation which may be accepted. The appellant neither transferred the respondent nor accepted his resignation but instead terminated his services for the reasons that without acceptance of his resignation he left his duties and did not clear the liabilities.
The order is Exh. P.5, dated 7-10-1979.
3. The reasons given in Exh. P.5 of termination are not cogent and do not stand proved. No agreement on bond under which the respondent may have agreed to re-imburse the appellant for anything spent by the appellant upon the respondent, has been produced. There is no evidence why the respondent is liable to pay back charges of training to the appellant. Likewise there is no evidence that the respondent after sending resignation absented himself. On behalf of the appellant only one document Exh. P.1. Has been tendered in evidence which shows that the Personnel Officer had been delegated the powers of punishing the respondent. The request of the respondent was genuine for transfer and in the alternative for the acceptance of his resignation. If for some reasons the transfer was not possible, the resignation of the respondent should have been accepted. The order of termination, therefore, was not legal.
4. It has been argued that since the respondent tendered resignation, he could not ask for re- instatement and could ask for the acceptance of his resignation, This argument too is not tenable.
If the resignation had been accepted instead of terminating the services, it would have been in the fitness of things but it was not done, so the respondent was justified in challenging the order of termination. If the acceptance of resignation has been finally refused, the incumbent can withdraw the same. In the present case the appellant refused to accept the resignation by terminating the services of the respondent. So, the respondent has been rightly directed to be re-instated in service.
5. As a result the appeal having no force is dismissed.