A resignation under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Act is deemed accepted after three months of notice without a response, negating claims for reinstatement post-acceptance.

ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The petitioner, who was working as Village Administrative Officer in Modaiyur Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, submitted a resignation letter dated 23.09.2011 to the District Revenue Officer, the 3^rd respondent herein, stating that, certain individuals had compelled him to sanction old age pension to the ineligible persons. However, the petitioner was issued with charge memo under rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules on 06.07.2012. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo, no further orders were passed even after a lapse of two years from the date of resignation.

3. Assuming that his request for resignation had not been accepted by the respondents, the petitioner submitted a series of representations to the respondent authorities seeking transfer as well as the payment of arrears of salary by treating the period of his absence as a duty period. However, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any orders were passed which prompted the petitioner to file a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.4304 of 2019 seeking a direction to consider his representation dated 04.08.2018 seeking reinstatement into service however, instead of passing orders the District Collector, the 3^rd respondent rejected the petitioner’s claim by order dated 03.05.2011 on the ground that the petitioner’s resignation was deemed to have been accepted and that order of acceptance was not necessary as per the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent which was also rejected vide order dated 29.07.2018. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1^st respondent. Since, the same was not considered, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.25203 of 2019 wherein, a direction was issued to dispose of the review application dated 11.09.2024. Pursuant thereto, the said review application was rejected by the 1^st respondent by order dated 04.11.2024. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as per Section 50 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the respondents are required to pass necessary orders upon being satisfied that the conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled. However, no such order was passed by the respondents authorities. In the absence of any such order either accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s resignation, the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service and therefore, refusing to reinstate the petitioner into service is wholly unsustainable.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court arising out of SLP.(C) No.15788 of 2021 inS.D.Manohara Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors.reported in 2024 INSC 693 . Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.

7. Per Contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner has submitted his resignation letter to the authority on 17.09.2012 as admitted by him, while disciplinary proceedings proceedings were pending against him. He further submitted that, the petitioner’s resignation was deemed to have been accepted as per Section 50 (1) (2) & (3) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016 and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no order was passed on his resignation letter is not sustainable. It was further submitted that the petitioner, after tendering his resignation, did not approach the authority either for withdrawal of resignation or