SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 409

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
The Union Of India And Ors. - Appellant 
VERSUS
Ex-Constable, FORCE NO. 89008021 Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Prem Nath Sharma - Respondent 
WA/392/2024
Decided On : 03-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Advocate for the Petitioner: MR H GUPTA,
Advocate for the Respondent: , MR P RAI(R-1),MR. R DEKA(R-1),MS T WAPANGLA(R-1)

A member of the Border Security Force must obtain prior written permission to submit a resignation application; failure to do so renders the resignation invalid.

Headnote:(A) Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 8 - Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 19 - Resignation of a member of the force - The court found that the resignation submitted by the respondent was not valid as it lacked prior written permission from the prescribed authority, rendering the acceptance of resignation null and void. The court directed that the respondent be deemed to have continued in service until the date of judgment and allowed voluntary retirement with benefits. (Paras 12-23)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that a member of the force must obtain prior permission to submit a resignation application, which was not demonstrated in this case. (Paras 15-20)

Facts of the case:
The respondent submitted a resignation letter on 08.04.2003, which was accepted on 25.04.2003. The respondent later contested the validity of this resignation, claiming it was not voluntary. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the appeal.

Findings of Court:
The acceptance of resignation was found to be contrary to the provisions of the BSF Act and Rules, and the respondent was deemed to have continued in service until the judgment date.

Issues: The main issue was whether prior permission was required for a member of the force to submit a resignation application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without prior written permission, the resignation was invalid, and the acceptance of resignation was non est in law. The court also noted the impracticality of reinstating the respondent after 20 years.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. Hareesh Gupta, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The present intra-Court appeal is instituted by the appellants, assailing the judgment & order, dated 17.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)2626/2011, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein, by interfering with the acceptance of the resignation submitted by the respondent on 08.04.2003, and further, directing that the respondent be deemed to have continued in service till the date of the judgment & order and be permitted to go on voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 18.08.2023, with all consequential benefits, as directed.

3. The respondent, herein, had submitted a resignation letter, on 08.04.2003, before the Commandant, 128 Battalion, Border Security Force, praying for resigning from his job voluntarily on account of some domestic problems faced by him. The said resignation letter, on being processed, came to be accepted by the Commandant, vide order, dated 25.04.2003, w.e.f. 30.04.2003. Accordingly, the respondent was permitted to proceed on resignation from service without pensionary benefits and his name was struck-off of the strength of the Unit w.e.f. 30.04.2003. After lapse of around a year from the date of acceptance of the resignation application submitted by the respondent, herein, he had approached the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab, by way of instituting a civil suit being Civil Case No. 372/2004, assailing the action on the part of the authorities in accepting the application for resignation submitted by him on the ground that the same was not an application voluntarily made by him but the same was so extracted from him by use of force which would have the effect of rendering the same null and void.

4. The learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab, vide judgment, dated 18.09.2007, by holding that the resignation application submitted by the respondent, herein, was not proved by the appellants, herein, to be a voluntary one; proceeded to declare the order, dated 30.04.2003, to be null and void and the appellants, herein, were directed to allow the respondent, herein, to get the voluntary retirement benefits as per rules.

5. The appellants, herein, being aggrieved; assailed the judgment, dated 18.09.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab, by way of instituting a civil appeal being Civil Appeal No. 21/2008, before the Court of the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab. The learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, Punjab, vide order, dated 03.08.2009, noticing that the respondent, herein, at the relevant point of time, when the order, dated 30.04.2003, was issued, accepting his resignation; was posted at Patgaon, Guwahati, Assam, and the order was served at Patgaon, Guwahati, Assam, held that no cause of action in the matter having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court, proceeded to set aside the impugned judgment & decree, dated 18.09.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab, and remitted back the matter to the learned trial Court with a direction to return the plaint in terms of the provisions of Rule 10 Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent, herein, approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court by instituting a writ petition being Civil Writ petition No. 14888/2010. The Hon'ble Court, vide order, dated 20.08.2010, proceeded to dismiss the said writ petition, holding that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the issue involved. Thereafter, the respondent, herein, had instituted approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)2626/2011.

7. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on recor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top