' Syed Mashhood Ashraf petitioner was working as category-I Officer with the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. He was issued a letter of charge on 10-5-1981 which was further supplemented with another letter 21-5-1981. The petitioner replied the charge and the explanation was under consideration when on 25-8-1981 he tendered resignation. The Bank did not accept the resignation and vide its Letter No, ZOL/PER /GEN/2474, dated 30-9-1981 intimated the petitioner of non- acceptance of his resignation for the reason that the advances initiated by him while posted as Manager at Railway Road and Badami Bagh Branches are neither yet cleared, adjusted nor regularized. Again the Bank vide letter dated 21-10-1981, advised the petitioner to resume duty immediately and to have the accounts and advances regularized as otherwise his resignation cannot be accepted. On his failure to resume his duty he was served with another charge-sheet vide letter dated 8-2-1982 for remaining absent unauthorized. Then vide letter dated 21-10-1982, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry in respect of the charges conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner after serving legal notice has challenged through this Constitution petition the charge-sheets issued and the enquiry ordered to be held against him.
2. Learned counsel in support of the petition has argued that the enquiry ordered vide letter dated 21-10-1982, being violative of Staff Services Rules, is illegal and that the enquiry is being held in a mala fide manner with a view to attach stigma to the petitioner though he had done everything since the institution of this petition in providing documents, executed by the borrowers, for the purposes of clearing the loans advances.
3. Before dealing with the submissions, it is pertinent to note that the Zonal Chief as well as the Circle Executive of the Bank appeared and they stated that in case the petitioner does not want to continue employment with the Bank, he can leave the Bank and his resignation will be accepted if the loans advanced by him to the borrowers are regularized. In view of this, the parties were given adjournments to settle the matter out of Court. The petitioner submitted certain documents purportedly executed by the borrowers. But the Bank was not satisfied with the documents procured from one borrower namely Punjab Woollen Industries Ltd. The Civil Miscellaneous Nos.
34/82, 91/83, 230/83 and 589/83 pertain to the arrangement which was being discussed between the petitioner and the Bank in respect of regularization of Accounts. As the understanding has not matured and the Bank does not feel satisfied, these miscellaneous petitions have become infructuous and as such need not be attended to any further. The petitioner in C.M. 230 of 1983 has filed circular of the Bank wherein the Bank has intimated to the financial institutions that the petitioner had resigned. From this, learned counsel in that manner infers that the resignation tendered by the petitioner stands accepted. I do not agree. By issuing this circular, the Bank has only intimated the fact that the petitioner has tendered resignation in order to safeguard its interest with its own Branches as well as with other financial institutions. The acceptance of resignation cannot be inferred from this circular. The submission that under Rule 16 of the Staff Service Rules an employee has the right to leave the employment by tendering resignation and thereafter disciplinary action contemplated by Rule 39 cannot proceed was not supported by citing any principle of law or precedent. Rule 16 of the Staff Service Rules cannot give an absolute right to an employee to resign from service during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and in that manner by his unilateral action go beyond the pale of the rules and thus frustrate the disciplinary action initiated against him. The enquiry ordered cannot also be held to be illegal on account of the submission that the Enquiry Officer has to be appointed simultaneously with the service of the charge-sheet. No such arguments can be raised on the basis of Rule 39.
4. There is no merit also in the plea that enquiry was ordered mala fide in order to ruin the career of the petitioner as the petitioner has left the service of the respondent Bank. The Bank, as stated above, was prepared to return the documents procured from the borrowers but the petitioner has himself choosen not to receive the documents back saying that sums borrowed by the borrowers was public money and these documents will help the Bank in recovering the public money. The approach of the petitioner and the grace shown will of course be appreciated by the respondents in the enquiry but it is not sufficient to show that the charge-sheets issued or the Enquiry ordered were illegal. No case for invocation of Constitutional. Jurisdiction is made out.
5. For the reasons given above, this petition is dismissed in limine.