Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
Shailendra Kumar Khamparia S/o Late Shri Krishna Kumar Khamparia – Petitioner
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation – Respondent
WP (S) No. 2314 of 2017
Decided On : 15-07-2024
(A) Service Law - Resignation - The petitioner challenged the acceptance of his resignation, arguing it was invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, including failure to deposit three months' salary as per appointment conditions. The court emphasized that a resignation must be unconditional and accompanied by an act of relinquishment. (Paras 1, 5, 14, 18)
(B) The court found that the resignation request was improperly accepted after being previously rejected, and the petitioner was reinstated with full back wages and benefits. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, initially appointed in 1985, had his resignation request turned down in March 2016 but was later accepted in September 2016 without fulfilling the necessary conditions.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the orders accepting the resignation and reinstated the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the resignation acceptance and the procedural compliance required for resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the resignation was not valid due to lack of compliance with the prescribed format and conditions, emphasizing the need for clear intention and action in resignations.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking the following reliefs:
10.2. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 06/09/2016 (Annexure P-1) and 29/03/2017 (Annexure P-2) by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.
10.3. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner in service for all practical purposes and also direct them to grant all consequential and pecuniary benefits thereof.
10.4. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fir under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.
10.5. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay a compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rs. Five Lakhs only) for harassing him by reviving the resignation request which was already turned down on 29/03/2016. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to award costs of the proceedings.”
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages as an Assistant in the then Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation on 11.11.1985. After about two years, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the said post vide order dated 10.11.1987 and he was posted at the District Office of the Corporation, Jabalpur. One of the conditions of the order dated 10.11.1987 specifically states that after two years’ service, the petitioner would be entitled to leave the Corporation's services after depositing three months’ salary with the Corporation. Later, the petitioner was promoted to Senior Assistant in the year 1997, Assistant Manager in the year 2013 and to the post of Deputy Manager in the year 2013. Vide letter dated 26.03.2016; the petitioner tendered his resignation via e-mail to the Managing Director of the Corporation citing some personal reasons. After the receipt of the resignation tendered by the petitioner, he was transferred to the Head Office, Raipur vide order dated 29.03.2016. Thereafter, on 29.03.2016 itself, the petitioner was informed that since his resignation letter was incomplete, was not in the prescribed format, the date was also not specifically mentioned from which he intended to proceed on resignation and he also did not deposit three months’ salary as per the condition of the appointment order, therefore the petitioner was directed to submit his resignation along with the aforesaid requisites. After that, the petitioner never submitted any other resignation request nor did he deposit three months’ salary.
3. Further facts of the case are that vide order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner was handed over the charge of the Legal Section of the Corporation. Vide order dated 07.05.2016, the petitioner was posted in the establishment of the Corporation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 05.07.2016, the petitioner was asked to deposit three months’ salary in pursuance of his resignation letter dated 26.03.2016. Vide order dated 07.07.2016, the petitioner was given the charge of Districts Sukma and Bijapur as the Area Officer for the purposes of inspection. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 06.09.2016 the resignation request was accepted by the Corporation which was already turned down by the authorities on 29.03.2016. Again, vide letter dated 16.09.2016, the petitioner was asked to deposit three months’ salary for taking further action. On 11.08.2016, the petitioner made a representation and requested the authorities to adjust three months' salary from his dues/salary but when no action was taken, he made a representation on 13.10.2016 for cancellation of acceptance of his resignation. Thereafter, he again requested for reconsideration of his resignation on 30.01.2017, 03.03.2017 and 09.03.2017.
4. Vide the impugned order/letter dated 29.03.2017 the representation/request for cancellation
A resignation must be unconditional and comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
Resignation withdrawal acceptance condones service interruption per DOPT OM; invalidates subsequent disciplinary action for unauthorized absence.
The acceptance of resignation was invalid due to non-timely action by the department and discriminatory practices in handling similar cases.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before its acceptance, and actions implying continued service must be recognized, entitling the employee to benefits.
A resignation tendered by an employee voluntarily, unless accepted, cannot bring an end to the employment contract, as per Clause 20 of the employment contract and Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Servic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a resignation is effective when it operates to terminate the employment, and the acceptance of a resignation is valid if it is voluntary and i....
A resignation from government service is effective only upon acceptance by the appointing authority, and the employer has the right to reject it if conditions for resignation are not met.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
The court held that resignations cannot be accepted while disciplinary proceedings are pending, affirming the principle that withdrawal of resignation restores continuity of service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
