IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Bijender Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1835 of 2021; Cm Appl No. 5273 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Resignation - Employment Dispute - The court held that the petitioner's letter dated 10th August, 2017 constituted a resignation letter and that the petitioner could not withdraw it after it had been accepted on 01st November, 2017. The court also emphasized the importance of having committed and dedicated employees in a sensitive and highly specialized organization.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and sought reinstatement in service as Scientist 'E' with all consequential benefits, claiming that his letter requesting transfer or resignation was not intended as a resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's letter constituted a resignation and that the petitioner could not withdraw it after its acceptance. The court also emphasized the importance of having committed employees in a specialized organization and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Challenge to CAT order, reinstatement, withdrawal of resignation, absence from service, and the petitioner's intentions in the letter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's letter constituted a resignation and that the petitioner could not withdraw it after its acceptance. The court also emphasized the importance of having committed employees in a specialized organization.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th May, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 1503/2019. Petitioner also challenges the letter dated 17th January, 2019, 27th November, 2019 and 01st November, 2017 and prays for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Scientist 'E' with all consequential benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the CAT failed to consider that the petitioner had neither resigned nor intended to resign from his post in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the same is evident from the alleged resignation letter dated 10th August, 2017. He emphasizes that the petitioner by way of the said letter had only sought a transfer to a family station as his wife was unwell.
4. He also submits that the CAT erred in holding that the petitioner could not withdraw his alleged resignation inasmuch as Rule 26(4) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1965, permits a government servant to withdraw his resignation prior to its acceptance.
5. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Scientist 'E' in DRDO, on ad hoc basis, on 09th August, 2016 at an establishment in Gaya, Bihar. He sought extensions to join and finally joined on 10th April, 2017 only i.e. after a gap of nearly eight months. Even after the delayed joining, the petitioner remained absent on various dates on the grounds ranging from his illness to his wife and parents illness as well as due to a new born baby.
6. The petitioner vide letter dated 10th August, 2017 requested the respondents to either transfer him or to accept his resignation. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner remained absent from service after submitting the letter dated 10th August, 2017. The said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Subject: Request for Transfer /Notice of Termination of Service to the Post of Scientist E in DRDO issued to appointing authority (DOP,DRDO) under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Kind Attn: Director-SPIC &Joint Director-Admin
1. Reference to your letter DOP/05/56069/115109 dated 30 Aug 2016, 17 Jan 2017 and 22 Mar 2017 regarding appointment to the Post of Scientist 'E' in DRDO.
2. The Extension of adhoc appointment upto 31st Dec 2017 was approved and intimated vide letter no. DOP/05/56069/115109 Dated 30Jun 2017.
3. Sir Due to my personal family requirements (to take care of my old parents and my wife and new born daughter) my presence is required in Delhi. Earlier I manage things by visiting my home from gaya on weekly or 15 days basis. Sometimes taking helps from relatives. But now it will not possible for me to visit every week due to that far location of site or asking people to support.
4. I request you kindly transfer me in Delhi or nearby Delhi state anywhere in Haryana, Chandigarh, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal if any site is there. If it is not possible in SPIC then kindly consider to give me a transfer in some another DRDO. I need this transfer because Indeed initial 2 years to settle things on family side.
5. In case it is not possible as mentioned in point 4, In terms of Para 3 of reference letters (1) above and in pursuance of sub rule of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) rules, 1965, I hereby, give notice to the termination of appointment with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of this letter.
6. Hence the undersigned may be released of all duties w.e.f 10th September 2017."
(emphasis supplied)
7. It is the respondents' case that the resignation was accepted on 01st November, 2017 and communicated on 07th November, 2017 i.e. prior to the petitioner withdrawing his resignation on 02nd November, 2017. The competent authority's letter dated 01st November, 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1. Reference your letter No.SPIC/Admin
AI
An employee cannot withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted, and a specialized organization requires committed and dedicated employees.
A resignation can be withdrawn only before its acceptance; acceptance is effective once communicated, impacting reinstatement rights.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
The acceptance of resignation is binding, requiring adherence to prescribed timeframes for withdrawal, with relaxation only permissible under exceptional hardship, subject to administrative considera....
The acceptance of resignation was invalid due to non-timely action by the department and discriminatory practices in handling similar cases.
Point of Law : The Board in exercise of power conferred under Section 33 read with Section 34 of IIIT Act with the approval of the Visitor notified the First Statute of IIIT. Statute 10 provides term....
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period for withdrawal of resignation and the need for providing cogent reasons for withdrawal.
An employee has the right to resign even after disciplinary proceedings if no further action is pending.
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.