SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
The Director General of Police & Anr – Appellant(s)
Versus
M. Jeyanthi – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No 9423 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 10115 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-12-2019
Service Law – Resignation – Withdrawal – Withdrawal of resignation is not permitted after acceptance by appointing authority – If resignation is being accepted, date of acceptance is not to be later than date of expiry of notice – If no order has been passed, resignation is deemed to have been accepted on expiry of period of notice – Authority can legitimately accept resignation from a date anterior to expiry of notice – Upon acceptance of resignation, cessation of service takes place and it is not open to employee to withdraw resignation – Resignation having taken effect upon its acceptance, withdrawal was of no consequence – High Court was not justified in coming to conclusion that within a period of ninety days which is period of notice required under Rules, it was open to employee to withdraw resignation even after acceptance – This construction is clearly contrary to provisions of Rule 35A – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside. [Rule 35A of Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services; Section 50 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016] (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27 March 2019. Allowing a writ appeal, Division Bench set aside an order of Single Judge which had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed State to reinstate the respondent back into service with continuity.
Findings of Court:
High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that within a period of ninety days, which is period of notice required under the Rules, it was open to employee to withdraw resignation even after acceptance. This construction is clearly contrary to the provisions of Rule 35A.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27 March 2019. Allowing a writ appeal, the Division Bench set aside an order of the learned Single Judge which had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the State to reinstate the respondent back into service with continuity.
3. The facts, insofar as they are material to the controversy, are thus:
The respondent was working as a Grade II Police Constable at the IXth Batallion, Manimuthar, Palayamkottai. She was appointed on 1 April 2010. While working at the All Women’s Police Station, Thoothukudi, the respondent tendered her resignation on 1 June 2017 and sought to be relieved from her job. The resignation was accepted on 12 June 2017. On 13 July 2017, the respondent purported to address a communication withdrawing the resignation. The respondent instituted a writ petition [Writ Petition No 3888 of 2018] before the High Court which was disposed of on 1 March 2018 with a direction to the Director General of Police to consider the representation and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
4. On 2 June 2018, the Director General of Police [“DGP”] passed an order rejecting the representation. In doing so, the DGP relied on the provisions of Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services [“Rules”]. The order of the DGP was challenged before a learned Single Judge in a writ petition [Writ Petition No 18211 of 2018] which was dismissed by an order dated 21 August 2018. The writ appeal [Writ Appeal No 1596 of 2018] filed by the respondent was, however, allowed. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that in terms of Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016 [“Act of 2016”], a period of ninety days’ notice is necessary. In the view of the High Court, this period of ninety days is intended for the benefit not only of the authority, but for the person who tendered the resignation to rethink whether the resignation should be withdrawn. The High Court found fault with the appellants for having accepted the resignation without waiting for the period of notice to expire and accordingly set aside the decision.
Consequently, reinstatement was granted with continuity of service.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, at the outset, submits that the High Court has relied on the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 2016 whereas the respondent was governed by Rule 35A of the Rules. Moreover, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 50(2), which have been extracted in the judgment of the High Court, contained an omission which would have a bearing on the interpretation of the provision. Learned counsel submitted that once the resignation was accepted, it was not open to the respondent to withdraw it.
6. Opposing this submission, it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the acceptance of the resignation on 12 June 2017 was not valid in law since it was subject to the grant of Vigilance and other clearances. Moreover, learned counsel supported the reasoning of the Division Bench that in view of the requirement of ninety days’ notice, it was open to the employee to withdraw the resignation before the period of notice expired and the acceptance of the resignation in the meantime would not affect that entitlement.
7. The provisions of Rule 35A of the Rules are analogous to Section 50 of the Act of 2016. The respondent, as a police constable, was governed by Rule 35A, which is extracted below:
“35A. Acceptance of Resignation
(a). The member of the service may resign his appointment by giving notice of not less than three months in writing direct to the appointing authority with a copy marked to his immediate Superior Officer. The period of three months notice shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of such notice by the appointing authority.
(b). The member
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.