2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4474

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anand Sharma, J
Mahaveer Singh Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5379/2002

A public servant does not have an absolute right to resign during contemplation of disciplinary proceedings; acceptance is discretionary. Willful absence after rejection of resignation is grave misconduct, and under Article 226, courts only review the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary inquiry - Scope of judicial review - Resignation of public servant - Held, mere tendering of resignation does not confer an absolute right to exit service, especially when departmental proceedings for serious misconduct are under contemplation or actively pending. Acceptance of resignation remains within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, who after weighing larger public interest, gravity of allegations and necessity to uphold administrative discipline against employee's convenience. Rejection of resignation in such circumstances is strictly in consonance with valid principles of law. (Paras 12, 16)

(B) Absence from duty - Willful and deliberate misconduct - Penalty of removal - Scope of interference under Article 226 - Writ Court does not act as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate evidence. Court can examine the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Scope of judicial review is limited to manifest illegality, violation of statutory rule, non-compliance of principles of natural justice, or where punishment is shockingly disproportionate. (Paras 15, 17)

(C) Mala fides allegations - Need to implead the person against whom allegations are levelled as a party respondent. Mere assertions without supporting material cannot be entertained. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an RAS officer appointed in 1979, submitted a resignation application on 18.11.1995 while absent from duty since 10.02.1995. The resignation was rejected on 14.06.1996 on the ground that an inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was under contemplation. A charge-sheet for willful absence was issued, and after an inquiry where the petitioner did not participate, he was removed from service on 28.07.1998. His review petition was dismissed on 02.11.1999.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the rejection of resignation was valid as the petitioner had no absolute right to resignation during contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner's absence was willful and unjustified, particularly after intimation that resignation was not accepted. The inquiry and penalty were procedurally correct. The allegations of mala fides were not entertainable as the Chief Minister was not impleaded. The writ petition was dismissed.

Issues: Whether rejection of resignation during contemplation of disciplinary proceedings is valid; whether penalty of removal for willful absence is justified; whether procedural errors or violation of natural justice exist; whether allegations of mala fides are entertainable without impleading the concerned person.

Ratio Decidendi: Resignation of a public servant is not an absolute right; acceptance is discretionary with the competent authority considering public interest and administrative discipline. Willful absence after rejection of resignation constitutes grave misconduct. Under Article 226, the court's jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is limited to examining decision-making process, not re-appreciating evidence.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.