' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--This I.-CA. Is directed against the order dated 15-3-1983 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition No, 4414 of 1982 brought by the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. It is argued that rule 16 of the Rules governing the service of the employees of the Bank, confers an absolute right on the appellant to tender his resignation and in lieu of notice, to pay to the Bank, a sum equal to his substantive pay for three months. According to the learned counsel the moment the appellant submitted his resignation alongwith three months' pay, irrespective of its non-acceptance by the Bank, he ceased to be its employee and the inquiry proceedings commenced against him, were rendered incompetent. Reliance was also placed on rule 41 to contend that when the charge-sheet was issued the appointment of the Inquiry Officer should also have been made simultaneously. To high-light his this submission, the learned counsel read out rule 41 and submitted that the word "and figuring in:- shall cause a charge-sheet to be issued to him and shall appoint an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee to hold an inquiry . Is conjunctive. His last submission was that the inquiry initiated against the appellant was mala fide. In this respect, the delay occasioned in completing the inquiry was one of the main factor, on which plea of mala fides was sought to be rested.
3. We have gone through the available record and also examined the relevant rules to evaluate these arguments. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. The appellant tendered his resignation after the issue of charge-sheet. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, then an employee accused of howsoever, a serious charge, can frustrate the inquiry and consequential infliction of punishment under rule 39, which he may essentially deserve. The provisions relating to disciplinary action against an employee, cannot be made subservient to his unilateral tender of his resignation under rule 16.
4. We are also unable to accept the interpretation put on rule 41, by the learned counsel as to the synchronous issue of the charge-sheet and the appointment of an Inquiry Officer. Here, what the user of the word "and" implies is that both the acts shall be performed by the same competent authority. It is difficult to agree, that a time lag between the issue of the charge-sheet and appointment of an Inquiry Officer, would render such appointment as illegal.
5. On the question of mala fides too, we, do not feel persuaded to differ with the learned Single Judge.
' Accordingly this I.-CA. Is dismissed in limine but we endorse the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the last para of the impugned order and further direct that the inquiry .Shall be completed expeditiously preferably within four months.