Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. Joseph, Alok Singh, JJ.
Sandeep Kumar Rana and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 109 of 2016
Decided On : 16-05-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Narendra Bali.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht and Mr. H.C. Bisht.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the acceptance of resignation and the limitations on withdrawal of resignation under the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003.
Headnote:
Resignation - Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003 - Rule 4, 5, 6, 7 - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003, which govern the resignation, acceptance, termination, and withdrawal of resignation by government servants. The court highlighted the importance of the acceptance of resignation and the limitations on withdrawal of resignation under the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the acceptance of the withdrawal of resignation by the Chief Fire Officer and prevent his joining. The Chief Fire Officer had resigned, and his resignation was accepted, but he later sought to withdraw it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation was accepted and had become final, making it incapable of being withdrawn under the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003. The court rejected the arguments based on technical resignation and held that the resignation must be accepted under the Rules.
Issues: The issues involved the acceptance and withdrawal of resignation by a government servant under the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003, and the authority of the government to allow the withdrawal of resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003, and the finding that the resignation had been accepted and become final, precluding its withdrawal under the Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order accepting the withdrawal of resignation was quashed.
K.M. Joseph, J.
1. Petitioners approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.3.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 not to permit the joining of the respondent no. 4 as Chief Fire Officer, Uttarakhand.”
2. Brief put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
“In the year 2013, recruitment to the post of Chief Fire Officer was undertaken by the Uttarakhand Public Services Commission. The petitioners alongwith respondent No. 4 were selected to the post of Chief Fire Officer. The appointment letter is dated 18.02.2013. The respondent No. 4 stood at serial No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 stood at serial No. 3 and the petitioner No. 2 stood at serial No. 6. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 moved an application, annexure-3, on 09.05.2014, seeking resignation.”
3. This application was duly considered by the State Government on 08.01.2015 and accepted the resignation with immediate effect and directed to relieve the 4th respondent. It is also made clear that after the resignation, respondent No. 4 will have no lien over the post he was holding. Copy of the order dated 08.01.2015 is annexed as Annexure No. 4. Pursuant to the said order, Office of Director General of Police vide order dated 13.01.2015 directed to pay all the dues and relieve the respondent No. 4. Copy of the order dated 13.01.2015 is annexed as Annexure No. 5. Application for resignation was considered under the provisions contained in the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 2003 Rules). After the resignation was accepted, services of the respondent No. 4 were terminated w.e.f. 08.01.2015. Though, Rule 7 provides for withdrawal of resignation but application for withdrawal of resignation can be made prior to the passing of the order of termination as provided under Rule 6. However, respondent No. 4 moved an application on 10.07.2015 for withdrawal of his resignation. Copy of the application dated 10.07.2015 is annexed as Annexure No. 6. It was acted upon and by the impugned order, the resignation was allowed to be withdrawn. It is, accordingly, the writ petitioners, are before us.
4. Counter affidavits are filed.
5. We heard Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. H.C. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
6. The Rules relating to resignation as far as employees of Uttarakhand Government are concerned, contained in 2003 Rules. Relevant paragraphs of the 2003 Rules read as follows:-
“2. Overriding effect. – These rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of executive orders issued in this behalf.
..........
4. Notice of Resignation. – (1) A Government servant may resign from his service by giving three months notice in writing.
(2) The notice of resignation shall be:
(i) voluntary and unconditional;
(ii) addressed to the appointing authority under intimation to the authority under whom the said Government servant is working at the time of tendering resignation:
Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government Servant to resign without any notice or by a shorter notice.
5. Acceptance or refusal of resignation. – (1) The resignation of the Government servant shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and formal order is issued thereof. The appointing authority may, in its discretion, refuse to accept the resignation, if:
(i) the Government servant owes to the Government any sum of money and/or any other liability unless the amount due has be
