The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of a resignation from government service is subject to the conditions specified in the relevant rules, and voluntary resignations cannot be withdrawn after being acted upon.

ORDER :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The Directorate of Education ("DoE"), Government of NCT of Delhi has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 14th July, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ("CAT"), allowing O.A. No. 3994/2013 filed by the Respondent herein whereby it was directed that the Petitioner issue appropriate orders, accepting the Respondent's request for withdrawal of her resignation, and allowing her to resume duty. The CAT also directed that the period of interruption from the date of her resignation i.e. 9th March, 2012, till the date the Respondent resume duty, be condoned.

2. The background facts are that the Respondent was serving as a Post Graduate Teacher ("PGT") under the GNCTD. She decided to contest as a candidate in the elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") as Counsellor. Accordingly, she applied on 7th March, 2012 to the Petitioner, seeking to resign from the services, with effect from 9th March, 2012.

3. The Respondent's resignation from service was accepted by the Competent Authority ("CA") by an order dated 16th April, 2012. As it transpired, the Respondent lost election. On 18th April, 2012, she submitted a representation to the Petitioner seeking to withdraw her resignation. By an order dated 1st June, 2012, the Petitioner rejected her request.

4. The further appeal by the Respondent to the Secretary of Education was rejected on 13th September, 2013, as was communicated to her by way of a letter dated 11th October, 2013. Thereafter, the Respondent filed O.A. No.3994/2013 before the CAT, challenging both the order dated 1st June, 2012 and the letter dated 11th October, 2013. After referring to Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the CAT noted that a person has no absolute right to withdraw his/her request for resignation after the resignation becomes effective. However, it was further noted that no reasons were given by the Petitioner for rejecting the Respondent's request of withdrawal of her resignation.

5. The CAT observed that the rejection was sought to be justified by making a reference to Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the notification dated 28th July, 2011 of the Department of Personnel & Training ("DoPT") whereby the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 2011 were issued, inserting Sub Rule (1A) in Rule 5, setting out the conditions under which the Central Government may permit a member of a service to withdraw his/her resignation in public interest. It was held that the above notification had no application to the case of the Respondent.

6. The CAT also referred to the decision dated 18th March, 2005 of this Court in Nirmal Verma v. MCD 118 (2005) DLT 665, following which a Coordinate Bench of the CAT had in an order dated 9th May, 2013 passed in O.A. No. 3362/2011 (Mahesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.) quashed an order, rejecting the request of the Applicant in that case for withdrawal of resignation. In that case also, after resigning from service, the Applicant contested elections to the post of Counsellor in the Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon. After losing the election, he made a representation for withdrawal of resignation. When his request was rejected, he approached the CAT. Referring to the decision in Nirmal Verma v. MCD (supra), the CAT allowed his request.

7. The CAT also referred to the decision in State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321, which the CAT sought to distinguish by referring to Rule 26 (4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 that permitted a person to withdraw his/her resignation on the conditions stipulated therein. According to the CAT, since the Respondent would not have been qualified to contend the election to the MCD without resigning, she was “compelled” to do so and that said “compelling reason” cannot be said to have any reflection on her integrity, efficiency or conduct. Further, it was noted that t