A resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance; without a formal order of acceptance, resignation remains ineffective, allowing for withdrawal and reinstatement.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003 - Section 5 - Withdrawal of resignation - The petitioner, appointed as a Receptionist, was denied the right to withdraw resignation before its acceptance, as the resignation was not formally accepted by the appointing authority. The Court emphasized that without acceptance and formal order, resignation is ineffective. The petitioner's resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 remained unaccepted; thus, her withdrawal was valid and reinstatement was ordered. (Paras 1, 44, 49)

(B) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 3, 3A, 5 - Electronic signature and records - The Court ruled that electronic records must be authenticated in line with the provisions of the Act. The absence of a digital signature invalidated the purported acceptance of resignation processed via e-office. (Paras 29, 39)

(C) Judicial precedence - The findings relied on judgments asserting that resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance, reinforcing the principle of locus poenitentiae. The resignation of employees governed by company regulations differs from civil servants under Government laws, affecting applicability of resignation rules. (Paras 12, 20, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellant submitted her resignation on 10.10.2023, which was allegedly accepted informally by HR on 31.10.2023. She argued that acceptance violated the Resignation Rules mandating three months' notice and formal acceptance by the MD. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that absence of a formal order equates to non-acceptance of resignation. The resignation was declared withdrawn on the basis of the principle that it can be retracted before acceptance. The Court ordered immediate reinstatement of the petitioner and directed payment of 50% salary for the interim period. (Paras 48, 50)

Issues: The primary issues were whether the resignation was accepted by the competent authority and the applicability of Resignation Rules to the employees of SIIDCUL. (Paras 22, 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that an electronic record’s authenticity requires adherence to statutory conditions for acceptance of resignation. Digital signature or formal approval is essential under the Information Technology Act, without which there was no valid acceptance of resignation. (Paras 39, 44)

Result: Writ petition allowed; petitioner reinstated with salary adjustments.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

1. The challenge in this Petition is made to the communication dated 31.10.2023 of the respondent no. 4/Manager, HR (Human Resources), State Infrastructure & Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited (“SIIDCUL”), by which the petitioner was informed that her resignation is approved by the Management as per request. The petitioner also seeks directions that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw her resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 and allow the petitioner to join on the post of Receptionist.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Receptionist in SIIDCUL on 27.09.2016; she worked on the position; she was given additional work on multiple occasions. The events thereafter, which are necessary for adjudication of the petition are as follows:-

(i) On 23.03.2023, the Managing Director, SIIDCUL (“MD, SIIDCUL”) attached the petitioner in the Directorate of Industries at Dehradun. The petitioner was further given additional charge.

(ii) On 10.10.2023, due to certain family problems and in view to look after her child, the petitioner tendered her notice of resignation to the MD SIIDCUL.

(iii) On 31.10.2023, according to the petitioner, in most illegal and arbitrary manner, the Manager (HR), SIIDCUL, who is not the appointing authority, accepted the notice of resignation, just within 20 days of its submission.

(iv) It is the case of the petitioner that the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003 (“Resignation Rules, 2003”) provides that the notice of resignation should be for three months and Rule 5 of it provides that the resignation shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and a formal order is issued thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that the resignation could not have been accepted within three months from the date of notice.

(v) The petitioner submitted an application on 09.12.2023 to the MD, SIIDCUL requesting for withdrawal of her resignation notice dated10.10.2023. However, no action was taken.

(vi) The petitioner filed multiple representations. The State of Uttarakhand also asked the MD, SIIDCUL to take action on the withdrawal letter of the petitioner.

(vii) On 24.06.2024, the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand conveyed the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Vigilance to the MD, SIIDCUL claiming that unless formal order is issued, the resignation cannot be termed to be accepted. Therefore, the application dated 09.12.2023 requires to be decided, by which the petitioner has requested for withdrawal of her notice of resignation. This communication is Annexure 21 to the writ petition. It also records that, in fact, the Rules promulgated by the Personnel Department do not apply to the Boards, Corporations, Commissions and other autonomous institutions unless the Rules are adopted by such Board, Corporation, Commission & autonomous institutions.

3. On behalf of the SIIDCUL, counter affidavit has been filed. According to the SIIDCUL, it is a Government of Uttarakhand enterprises, which is incorporated under the Companies Act. It the case of the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 that the resignation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2023 was duly accepted by the competent authority i.e. Managing Director, SIIDCUL; the communication of acceptance was made by the Manager (HR), SIIDCUL; The HR Department is designated for issuing communication of behalf of the higher authorities; there is no requirement under the law that the appointing authority must communicate such acceptance. Referring to Resignation Rules, 2023, in para 20 of the counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 state that petitioner’s interpretation is selective; Rule 5 of Resignation Rules, 2023 permits appointing authority to accept the resignation letter with shorter notice; the petitioner’s reference on three months period is misplaced; Rule 5 of the Resignation Rules, 2003 provides rejection of resignation only under certain limite