The withdrawal of resignation and seeking reinstatement is subject to the appointing authority's discretion and should involve public interest.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses 15-B and 15-C as under :—

“15-B. Kindly issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction in the like nature, kindly quash and set aside order dated 13-1-2020 passed by the Commandant 52nd Bn SSB, Araria in proceeding No. 1/Estt-III/ 52nd Bn./CRC/PF/S.P.T./2017-18/808-10 and consequently reinstate in service to the petitioner as a CT (GD). 15-C. Kindly be declared and hold that, the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement in service as per the guidelines DoP & TOM No. 28035/2/2014-Estt (A) dated 10-6-2019.”

3. The petitioner was appointed as a “Constable Guard” in the Indian Army on 1-3-2007. He was inducted in the 52nd battalion SSB, Araria. The petitioner has 3 sisters and is the only son to his parents. His parents are old and suffering from age related issues. He tendered his resignation in his own handwriting on 16-7-2019, which was accepted on 25-7-2019. He was relieved on the same date. He submitted an application on 6-9-2019 withdrawing his resignation as per the guidelines dated 10-6-2019 and prayed for reinstatement in service. By communication dated 13-1-2020, the Commandant, Sashastra Seema Bal, 52nd Battalion, Araria, refused to allow the application dated 9-10-2019 (which was received by his office) and declined to accept his request for reinstatement.

4. The petitioner contends that he had first submitted an application on 29-8-2019 for reinstatement. We do not find any evidence that the said application has reached the Commandant. The petitioner submits that he posted another application dated 9-10-2019 in which the reference to an earlier request dated 6-9-2019 has been made in paragraph No. 2. It is this application, that was considered vide the impugned order and was not accepted.

5. The petitioner has relied upon the office memorandum dated 10-6-2019 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training. According to him, his case is covered by Clause 2 of the said memorandum, which would facilitate his reinstatement in service within 90 days.

6. Clause 2 of the office memorandum reads as under :—

“2. The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely :

[a] that the resignation was tendered by the Government Servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation.

[b] that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;

[c] that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days;

[d] that the post, which was vacated by the Government Servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.”

7. The learned Advocate for the respondents has relied upon the affidavit in reply dated 20-6-2021 filed by Virendra Kumar Verma, Commandant 52nd Battalion. While supporting the impugned order, he submits that firstly, a reinstatement could be possible only in public interest. No such public interest is involved in this case. Secondly, the petitioner had submitted his resignation letters even earlier on 23-6-2016, 16-12-2017, 26-3-2018 and finally on 6-7-2019. He also tendered a reminder on 18-7-2019.

8. He then draws our attention to an incident that had occurred on 14-7-2015 when the petitioner was performing Sentry