Chhattisgarh High Court Mandates Inquiry Into Resignations When Coercion Allegations Are Expressly Stated By Employees

In a significant ruling concerning employment security, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has underscored the duty of employers to act with due diligence when receiving a resignation letter that cites duress. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed an appeal filed by Chouksey Engineering College, affirming a previous order that reinstated a professor who was forced to resign under threat.

Dispute Over Alleged Coerced Resignation

The case involved Ashish Kumar Khandelwal, an Assistant Professor at the college, who submitted his resignation on September 21, 2020. In his resignation, Khandelwal explicitly stated that the decision was not voluntary but was prompted by threats and pressure exerted by two of his colleagues. The college administration accepted the resignation within two days, on September 23, 2020.

Khandelwal subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the validity of his resignation, alleging that the management failed to conduct any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his departure. The learned Single Judge initially ruled in his favor, quashing the acceptance of the resignation and ordering his reinstatement along with full back wages and service benefits.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

The appellant-college contended that the resignation was submitted in accordance with established rules and argued that there was no evidentiary basis for the trial court’s finding of coercion. Counsel for the college emphasized that the accused colleagues had denied the allegations via affidavits.

Conversely, the respondent argued that the inclusion of the allegation of "threat and pressure" in the resignation letter itself created an immediate duty for the management to verify the voluntariness of the act before accepting it.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

The High Court rejected the college's appeal, observing that the resignation letter itself contained specific claims of coercion. The Court held that when such serious allegations appear on the face of the document, the management cannot remain indifferent.

The bench noted that the subsequent affidavits provided by the accused colleagues could not rectify the management's initial failure to investigate the matter during the crucial period between the submission and acceptance of the resignation.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the standard of care required from an institution: * "The resignation letter dated 21.09.2020 itself records that it was being submitted under threat and pressure from two colleagues." * "In such circumstances, the Management was required to satisfy itself regarding the voluntariness of the resignation before accepting the same." * "The subsequent denial by the concerned colleagues through affidavits cannot cure the failure of the appellant to examine the circumstances existing at the time of acceptance of the resignation."

Final Order and Implications

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the "learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly concluded that the resignation was not voluntary and that its acceptance was legally unsustainable ." The Court maintained the order for reinstatement and the disbursement of all arrears of salary and statutory service benefits . This judgment serves as a vital precedent for academic and professional institutions, emphasizing that legal procedures must prioritize the protection of employees against workplace coercion over administrative convenience.