The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period for withdrawal of resignation and the need for providing cogent reasons for withdrawal.

The rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawing her resignation from service is the broad subject matter which has been raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts in brief may be stated as follows.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter CISF) on 20.08.2008 and after completion of training, she was posted at Kota, Rajasthan vide an order dated 16.04.2009. From 11.09.2012 to 08.11.2012, the petitioner was on leave and in the meantime on 14.09.2012 an order of transfer of the petitioner to Dibrugarh was passed.

3. On the issue of overstay of leave, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which had culminated in imposition of a penalty of reduction of pay for 3 years. Though such action was not put to any challenge, it has been pleaded that due to certain domestic problems, on 28.05.2013, the petitioner had submitted her resignation. The same was provisionally accepted vide a communication dated 29.05.2013 and on the same date, the petitioner was discharged. On the next date i.e. 30.05.2013, the name of the petitioner was struck off from the rolls of the CISF. The provisional acceptance was however attached with certain conditions which the petitioner had fulfilled.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.11.2013, she had submitted an application for withdrawal of her resignation which however was rejected on 29.11.2013 on the ground that the same was not submitted within the prescribed period of 90 days and there was a delay of 65 days. On such rejection, the petitioner had submitted another representation dated 11.07.2014 before the Director General which was also rejected on 22.07.2014. Subsequent representations said to be filed by the petitioner were also rejected.

5. In 2018, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court by filing a writ petition being WP(S) No. 3219/2018 challenging the action of rejection of her application for withdrawal of resignation. The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court however, vide order dated 14.02.2019 had rejected the aforesaid writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, pursuant to the liberty granted, the instant writ petition has been filed.

6. I have heard Shri U. K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondents are represented by Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC.

7. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the acceptance of the resignation, though provisionally was done on the very next date i.e. 29.05.2013 which was hasty and not proper whereby the petitioner was deprived of an adequate opportunity of re-consideration of her action. It is further submitted that though an Office Memorandum dated 04.12.2007 was taken into consideration as a ground for such rejection, the said Office Memorandum also provides for condonation of delay in appropriate cases.

8. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 which were framed under Section 22 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relevant provisions would be Rules 58 and 59. It is submitted that Rule 58 pertains to ‘Resignation’, Rule 59 is with regard to the ‘Discharge Certificate’. It is submitted that though Rule 59 envisages that the Discharge Certificate should be in a particular form in APPENDIX “D”, the same was not complied with and therefore the process cannot be held to be legal. Reliance has also been placed on Rule 77 as per which, so far as conditions of service are concerned, if no provision or insufficient provisions have been made in the Rules, the Rules for corresponding post in Central Government can be taken into consideration. By submitting that Rule 58 of the aforesaid Rules are insufficient, the learned counsel has contended that the CRPF Rules of 1955 would come into application. By