1. Resignation of member of Central Industrial Security Force — Acceptance by Deputy Inspector-General — Request for withdrawal and re-enlistment rejected. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. VERMA & K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
Union of India & Ors.
Versus
Binod Bihari Behera
Civil Appeal No. 10304 of 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.9517 of 1993)
Decided 14-11-1995.
Important Points
The Court ruled that rules framed under the CISF Act can validly delegate appointment and resignation-acceptance powers to supervisory officers. Additionally, the refusal of re-enlistment is not arbitrary if based on relevant facts, such as an unsatisfactory service record.
Subject
Employment Law - Resignation and Re-enlistment
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution Of India - Article 226 - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 5 - Section 22 - Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 - Section 22 - Sub-Inspector - Resignation - Withdraw His Resignation - Respondent was a Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force - He tendered his resignation, which was accepted by Deputy Inspector-General (D.I.G.) of Force - Respondent then, applied to withdraw his resignation and in alternative prayed for re-enlistment in Force - Both these prayers were rejected - Respondent, then filed writ petition – Held, Refusal of saif tion for re-enlistment of respondent - A member of Force was arbitrary, wa| to see whether record disclosed exis ence of relevant facts to support i jection of sanction - Above facts disclosed from record which High Court examined, are undoubtedly releva| factors to support refusal of sanctiffl by D.I.G - None of these factors cou be called extraneous or non-existent - Moreover, prayer for re-enlistmnet was a reiteration of same prayer which had been rejected twice earlier with putting forth any fresh ground to justify if reconsideration - It is difficult to appreciate how exercise of discretion by D.I.G. under Rule 58 could be termed as arbitrary, on these facts - Other contention of respondent is equally devoid of any merit - There was thus no around on which respondent could be granted any relief in his writ petition - Appeal Allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.Subhashini, P.P.MALHOTRA, P.PARMESHVARAN, S.A.Matto, VINU BHAGAT
A.Subhashini, P.P.MALHOTRA, P.PARMESHVARAN, S.A.Matto, VINU BHAGAT
Table of Contents
2. Competence of Deputy Inspector-General to accept resignation — Arbitrariness of refusal to grant sanction for re-enlistment. (Para 4 )
3. Rules framed under statutory power satisfy requirements for conferment of power via order; discretionary refusal of re-enlistment is valid if based on relevant facts. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 13 )
4. Rules framed under statutory rule-making power satisfy requirements for conferment of power via order; administrative discretion is non-arbitrary if supported by relevant facts. (Para 10 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed. (Para 14 )
6. Does a rule framed under statutory rule-making power satisfy a requirement for the conferment of power by an order of the Central Government?
Yes. Rules framed by the Central Government in exercise of statutory rule-making power for carrying out the purposes of an Act have the same legal efficacy as an order and satisfy such requirements. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can a resignation be withdrawn after it has been duly accepted by the competent authority?
No. Once a resignation is validly accepted by the competent authority, any subsequent attempt to withdraw the resignation is ineffective. (Para 10 )
8. What is the standard of judicial scrutiny to determine if the refusal of sanction for re-enlistment is arbitrary?
The court must only determine whether the record discloses the existence of relevant facts to support the rejection. If the decision is based on relevant factors and not extraneous or non-existent ones, it is not arbitrary. (Para 12 , 13 )
J.S. VERMA, J. :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is against the Judgment dated 30th March, 1992 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa, by which the writ petition (OJC No.543,of 1988) filed by the respondent has been allowed.
3. The respondent was a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short the Force). He tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the Deputy Inspector-General (D.I.G.) of the Force on 17/10/1984. The respondent then, on 4/12/1984 applied to withdraw his resignation and in the alternative prayed for re-enlistment in the Force. Both these prayers were rejected. The respondent, then filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. Two grounds were urged in the High Court in support of the writ petition. The first ground was that the D.I.G. was not the competent authority under the relevant rules to accept the resignation on account of which there was no valid acceptance of the resignation before its withdrawal on 4/12/1984. The other contention was that the rejection of the prayer for re-enlistment as a member of the Force after acceptance of the resignation was an arbitrary exercise of the discretionary power conferred by the relevant rules. .The High Court has accepted both the contentions. However, in view of the acceptance of the first contention the High Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent on the payment of one-third arrears of salary together with the other service benefits.
5, The first question before us relates to the competence of the D.I.G. of the Force to accept the resignation of the respondent. The relevant provisions with reference to which the point has to be decided are Section 5 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short the Act) and Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act. Section 5 reads as under:-
"5. Appointment of members of the Force.- The appointment of the enrolled members of the Force shall rest with the Director-General who shall exercise that power in accordance with rules made under this Act.
Provided that the power of appointment under this section may also be exercised by such other supervisory officer as the Central Government may by order specify in this behalf."
Section 22 of the Act confers the rule making power on the Central Government for carrying out the purposes of this Act. the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short the Rules) have been made by the Central Government in exercise of this power. Rule 3-A relates to composition of the Force comprising of supervisory officers and members of the Force, wherein, Deputy Inspector-General is named as a supervisory officer while inspector and Sub-Inspector, etc., are specified as the members of the Force. Chapter IV of the Rules relates to Recruitment to the Force and therein Rule 11 is as under :-
11. Powers of appointment.-Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules appointments to the posts of Inspector; shall.be" made by the Deputy Inspector General concerned and to the -"ranks off Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector,ft Head Security Guard, Senior Security Guard, Security Guard and Followers sha" be made by the Commandant."
6. Obviously, the first point has to be decided with reference to Section 5 of the Act and Rule 11 as quoted above." tion 5 prescribes for appointment of fj enrolled members of the Force by Diri tor General, who shall exercise that powf in accordance with the Rules made under the Act. The manner of exercise of povyf of appointment conferred on the Qirec General is regulated by the afores Rules framed under Section 22 of theft The proviso to Section 5 permits the Ci tral Government by order to specify inifj behalf such other supervisory officer may be specified to exercise the powerf appointment under the Section. In otfif words, Section 5 confers the power;o appointment of the e
