Chouksey Engineering College vs Ashish Kumar Khandelwal

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 21380

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Chouksey Engineering College – Appellant
Versus
Ashish Kumar Khandelwal – Respondent
WA No. 592 of 2026

Important Points

When a resignation letter explicitly mentions that it is being submitted under threat or pressure, the employer must conduct an inquiry to verify its voluntariness before acceptance; failure to do so renders the acceptance legally unsustainable.

Subject

Service Law - Resignation and Reinstatement

Act Referred

Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006: S.2(1)

Headnote

The appeal was filed under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed the acceptance of an employee's resignation. The employee, an Assistant Professor, contended that the resignation was not voluntary but submitted under threat and pressure from colleagues, a fact explicitly mentioned in the resignation letter itself. The Single Judge had directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. The primary issue was whether the management was obligated to verify the voluntariness of a resignation when the letter itself alleged coercion. The court reasoned that when a resignation letter records that it is being submitted under threat and pressure, the management is required to satisfy itself regarding the voluntariness of the act before acceptance. The court held that the failure to conduct any inquiry or verification prior to acceptance rendered the action legally unsustainable, and subsequent affidavits from colleagues could not cure this initial failure. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Veena Nair
For the Respondents: Dibyanand Patel, Sumit Verma

Table of Content
1. procedural history and facts regarding a challenge to a non-voluntary resignation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. competing arguments on whether an inquiry is mandatory for accepting a resignation alleging coercion. (Para 4 , 5)
3. employer's duty to verify voluntariness of resignation when coercion is explicitly claimed in the resignation letter. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT ON BOARD

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Dr. Veena Nair, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Dibyanand Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1/ writ petitioner and Mr. Sumit Verma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3.

2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was respondent No.1 in the writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 447 of 2021 (Ashish Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Chouksey Engineering College & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 herein has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner). The writ petitioner had challenged the acceptance of his resignation dated 21.09.2020 by the appellant-College and sought a declaration that the resignation was illegal, along with consequential reliefs including reinstatement in service, arrears of salary, service benefits, payment of provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues. The case of the writ petitioner was that he had been appointed as an Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the appellant-College and that his resignation was not voluntary but was submitted under threat and pressure exerted by two of his colleagues. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the resignation was not voluntary, quashed its acceptance, and directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner with arrears of salary and all consequential service benefits from the date of acceptance of resignation, i.e., 23.09.2020. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in interfering with the acceptance of the resignation. It is contended that respondent No.1 voluntarily tendered his resignation on 21.09.2020, which was duly accepted by the competent authority on 23.09.2020 in accordance with the applicable rules. It is further submitted that there was no material before the learned Single Judge to conclude that the resignation had been obtained under coercion, threat or undue influence. The allegations against two colleagues were specifically denied by them through affidavits filed before the Court, and there was no independent evidence to substantiate the plea of coercion. It is argued that the learned Single Judge wrongly presumed that an inquiry was mandatory before acceptance of the resignation, though no such requirement exists in law when an employee voluntarily submits a resignation. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order directing reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the resignation itself disclosed that it had been tendered under threat and pressure exerted by two colleagues, namely Chitrakant Tiger and Jai Kishan Gupta. It is contended that despite such a clear assertion in the resignation letter, the appellant-Management accepted the resignation within two days without conducting any inquiry or satisfying itself regarding its voluntariness. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge r