Resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance; undue delay in acceptance affects validity of resignation.

J U D G M E N T

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The adjudication in this case is intended to resolve a long standing service dispute between the parties, rather than to lay down any precedent of law.

3. The short facts necessary for resolution of this dispute revolve around the invariable question that arises in disputes involving withdrawal of the resignation letter1, i.e. whether the employee

1 Resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, is an established principle of law; Suman v. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 161; Air India Express Limited v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129; Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 314; Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228; Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301.

has withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the employer or not. Having examined the matter in detail, we have arrived at the conclusion that resignation was in fact withdrawn before its acceptance. We have thus allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the appellant. Further, to balance equities, we ordered the salary payable for the period that the appellant has not worked to be restricted to 50% of the salary payable for the said period.

4. The appellant has been in service of the respondent since 1990.

After having put in 13 years of service, he tendered his resignation on 05.12.2013 stating that it may be considered as coming into effect on expiry of one month. On the question whether this resignation letter was withdrawn before its acceptance, there are a number of letters and instances cited by the appellant and the respondent as well, but the crucial letters that would clinch the issue are just four in number.

5. The respondent states that the letter of resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014 w.e.f from 07.04.2014. Respondent further states that the appellant sought to withdraw his resignation dated 05.12.2013 only on 26.05.2014, which could not be accepted and therefore, they have rejected the request on 23.06.2014 and relieved the appellant w.e.f. 01.07.2014.

5.1 On the other hand, the appellant’s primary submission was that the letter dated 15.04.2014 was never issued to him. It was only an internal communication of the respondent. He further submits that the said communication dated 15.04.2014 was not even marked to the appellant and it has no reference to appellant’s resignation letter dated 05.12.2013. That, it is an internal communication is also evidenced by the fact that it does not fix any date for relieving, instead it directed necessary action like no dues certificate etc. to be given to the appellant before relieving him. Importantly, the appellant fortifies his case by stating that he continued in service despite the initial letter dated 05.12.2013 and had in fact reported on 19.05.2014. He relied on letter dated 10.05.2014 issued by the respondent directing him to report to duty pursuant to his application dated 24.04.2014 for casual leave for two days i.e. for 25th and 26th of April 2014. He also relied on letters of his wife dated 17.04.2014 and 20.05.2014 requesting the respondent not to accept her husband’s resignation. A certificate of competency issued by the respondent stating that the appellant is competent to take the Engineering Block is also relied on by the respondent employer.

6. Questioning the letter dated 23.06.2014, formally rejecting his withdrawal, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 50662/2014 (S-RES) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The learned Single Judge by its judgment dated 16.07.2019 allowed the Writ Petition and directed reinstatement of the appellant with all benefits. Challenging the said order of the Single Judge, the respondent filed a Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 (S-RES) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru which was allowed by the Division Bench by the order impugned before us.

7. The analysis and decision of the Division Bench is