2007 Supreme(SC) 474

2007(3) Supreme 660
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
A.K. Mathur and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Secy., Technical Education, U.P. & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Lalit Mohan Upadhyay & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 2001
Decided on 9-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Niranjana Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Dinesh Dewedi, Sr. Advocate, Nikhil Majithia, Joseph Pookkatt and Prashant Kumar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his unlateral act of tendering resignation, gives up his service/or office normally the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure gets terminated when it is accepted by the competent authority.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Resignation — Right of an employee to withdraw — Respondent was appointed as a Lecturer on probation for a period of two years in an Engineering College — Allegations of his indecent behaviour with a girl student — Enquiry in camera — Respondent submitted letter of resignation to the Principal requesting him to accept the same with immediate effect — Principal and Board of Governors adopted a reasonable and fair mode of accepting his letter of resignation instead of terminating his services for unsuitability — Enquiry Report had stated that charge of indecent and objectionable behaviour of respondent with a girl student stood proved — Counter allegation of respondent the Principal of College had forced him to put his signature on letter of resignation reported to be wrong — By an order of the Chairman, Board of Governors, letter of resignation of respondent was accepted — Writ petition filed by respondent alleging that he had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance, therefore, he be treated as continued in service — Whether High Court was justified in allowing respondent’s claim of withdrawal of resignation — (No).

       Held : The general principle is that a Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, gives up his service/or office normally the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure gets terminated when it is accepted by the competent authority. Thus, having regard to the letter of resignation (Annexure P-2), in the present case, there can be no doubt that Shri. L.M. Upadhyay had in his letter dated 06.09.1993, indicated his unequivocal intention to resign in the clearest possible terms with immediate effect. The resignation was tendered by Shri Upadhyay voluntarily without any pressure or coercion from the Principal of the College as recorded by all the Inquiry Officers in their respective fact finding reports and the counter allegation of Shri Upadhyay against the Principal was found unwarranted and unfounded. The Principal in fact, had protected the reputation, saved the future career and unnecessary humiliation and embellishment of Shri Upadhyay from the students, staff members and teachers of the College by permitting him to leave the College immediately before his letter of resignation was forwarded to the competent authority for its acceptance. (Para 17)

       We have carefully gone through the representation/complaint dated 10.09.1993 (Annexure P-3) submitted by Shri L.M. Upadhyay to the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Technical Education. There is no whisper in the said representation that he intended to withdraw his letter of resignation dated 06.09.1993. Thus, finding of the High Court that Shri L.M. Upadhyay had withdrawn his letter of resignation dated 06.09.1993 by a subsequent letter dated 10.09.1993 was not born out from the record. Similarly, the High Court is not right in holding that the letter of resignation dated 06.09.1993 submitted by Shri L.M. Upadhyay was accepted by the State Government and not by the Board of Governors is not tenable. As noticed above, the letter of resignation tendered by Shri L.M. Upadhyay to the Principal was forwarded by the Principal on the same day to the Board of Governors for its acceptance with immediate effect with a request to waive the period of notice of one month required to be given by the employee before tendering his resignation. The documents marked as Annexures P-6 and P-7 would clearly and plainly establish that the letter of resignation tendered by Shri L.M. Upadhyay was accepted by the competent authority after receipt of the inquiry reports of the inquiry officers. It is not in dispute that the Chief Secretary was the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the College and the Joint Secretary of the Department of Technical Education, State of U.P., had only conveyed the decision of the acceptance of the resignation taken by the Chairman, Board of Governors, to the Principal of the College. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the letter of resignation of Shri L.M. Upadhyay was accepted by the Principal of the KEC or by the State Government as submitted by respondent No. 1. There cannot be any quarrel on the settled principle of law that an employee is entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority. (Paras 18 & 19)

       Admittedly, Shri L.M. Upadhyay was on probation and the Authority was empowered to judge his fitness for work or suitability to the post of teacher at the time of acceptance of his resignation. In our view, the services of Shri L.M. Upadhyay during probation period could have been terminated by the Authority, but the Principal and the Board of Governors had adopted a reasonable and fair mode of accepting his pending letter of resignation instead of terminating his services for unsuitability. (Para 19)