Back
2005 Supreme(Del) 380
High Court Of Delhi
NIRMAL VERMA - Appellant
Versus
MCD - Respondent
W.P.(C.) : 3303 of 2003
Decided On : 03/18/2005
Ashok Bhasin, PARAG P.TRIPATHI, Rajesh Goyal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a request for withdrawal of resignation must be based on valid grounds and cannot be supported by rules that were not initially cited. The court also emphasized the prohibition of hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in administrative decisions.
Headnote:
resignation - withdrawal of resignation - CCS (Conduct) Rules, Rule 5, Rule 26 (4) - The court discussed the application of Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 26 (4) of CCS (Pension) Rules in the context of withdrawal of resignation by a government servant who participated in politics and lost the election. The court found that the rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation based on Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules was not sustainable as the rule was not attracted. The court also held that the respondents could not seek to support the rejection under Rule 26 (4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, as it was not the ground taken while rejecting the application. The court further noted hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in the rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation, and quashed the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Mistress, tendered her resignation to contest municipal elections, which was accepted. After losing the election, she sought permission to withdraw the resignation, which was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the rules cited were not applicable to her situation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation based on Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules was not sustainable, and the respondents could not seek to support the rejection under Rule 26 (4) of CCS (Pension) Rules. The court also noted hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in the rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation, and quashed the impugned orders.
Issues: The issues involved the application of Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 26 (4) of CCS (Pension) Rules in the context of withdrawal of resignation by a government servant who participated in politics and lost the election, as well as the alleged hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in the rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation based on Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules was not sustainable, and the respondents could not seek to support the rejection under Rule 26 (4) of CCS (Pension) Rules. The court also noted hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in the rejection of the request for withdrawal of resignation, and quashed the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders rejecting the petitioner's request for withdrawal of resignation and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's case and pass necessary orders within one month from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) PETITIONER-NIRMAL Verma, has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of impugned order bearing No. SRC/256/aeo/admn. /02 dated 31st May, 2002, by which her request for withdrawal of resignation was rejected. Petitioner also assails order bearing No. D/6242/aeo/kbz/03 dated 10th March, 2003, by which her representation, seeking reconsideration of order dated 31st May, 2002 was not entertained.
( 2 ) PETITIONER was working as a Head Mistress of M. C. Primary School, dasghara-I, Delhi of the respondent/mcd. She was bitten by the bug to join politics. She sought permission to contest election as Councillor of MCD. Vide letter dated 24th May, 2002, petitioner tendered her technical resignation, since a person holding an office of profit, was barred from contesting municipal elections. Respondent accepted her resignation with immediate effect, vide order no. D/aeo/admn. /114/2002. As fate would have it, petitioner, who contested as a bjp candidate, lost the election. Petitioner by letter dated 1st April, 2002, sought permission to be permitted to withdraw the technical resignation, so that she could join back her duties at the earliest. It was on the aforesaid letter that respondent passed the impugned order dated 31st May, 2002 (Annexure P-1 ). The Office order is a short one and may be reproduced for facility of reference:- office ORDER reference to your application dated 01. 04. 2002, requesting for withdrawal of resignation from the post of H. M. In this regard, it is inform you that your request of withdrawal of resignation has been turned down by competent authority. Because your s resignation was accepted for your participation in politics. Due to this participation in politics you become ineligible for job under Rule 5 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. This issues with prior approval of the competent authority. Sd/- 31. 5. 02 asst. Education officer (Admn
( 3 ) THE representation made thereafter, seeking reconsideration of the petitioner s case was also of no avail and was not entertained, as communicated by annexure P-2.
( 4 ) PETITIONER assails the impugned order. Respondents have declined the petitioner s request for withdrawal of the resignation on the solitary ground that she had participated in politics and as such she became ineligible for the job under Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Rule 5 with explanation is reproduced for facility of reference:- 5. Taking part in politics and elections (1) no Government servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with any political party or any organization which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity. (2) It shall be the duty of every Government Servant to endeavour to prevent any member of his family from taking part in, subscribing in aid of, or assisting in any other manner any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be, subversive of the Government as by law established and where a Government Servant is unable to prevent a member of his family from taking part in, or subscribing in aid of, or assisting in any other manner, any such movement or activity, he shall make a report to that effect to the Government. (3) If any question arises whether a party is a political party or whether any organization takes part in politics or whether any movement or activity falls within the scope of sub-rule (2), the decision of the Government thereon shall be final. (4) No Government servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in any election to any Legislature or Local authority: provided that - (i) a Government Servant qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted; (ii) a Government servant shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this
