Public Servant Has No Absolute Right to Resign Pending Disciplinary Proceedings: Rajasthan High Court

In a significant ruling addressing the boundaries of administrative accountability, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has reaffirmed that a public servant does not possess an inherent or absolute right to resign from service, especially when disciplinary proceedings are under contemplation. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anand Sharma, reinforces the state's authority to hold employees accountable for willful absence even when they have tendered a resignation.

A Chronology of Conflict

The matter pertained to a petition filed by Mahaveer Singh Rathore, a former Officer in the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS). Rathore had submitted his resignation on November 18, 1995, while posted at the Rajasthan Housing Board. However, at the time of submission, he had already been absent from duty since February 10, 1995.

The respondents—the State of Rajasthan—declined to accept the resignation, citing ongoing disciplinary inquiries against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Despite being formally directed to rejoin his duties, Rathore chose not to report, leading to a charge-sheet and subsequent inquiry, which eventually resulted in the penalty of removal from service on July 28, 1998. An appeal to the Governor of Rajasthan proved unsuccessful, moving the petitioner to seek relief via writ jurisdiction.

The Arguments: Bona Fide Belief vs. Unjustified Absence

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Rathore acted under a "bona fide belief" that his resignation would be accepted, justifying his absence as a symptom of his expectation to leave the service. The petitioner further claimed that the departmental proceedings were initiated due to personal antagonism from the then Chief Minister.

Conversely, the State contended that the mere submission of a resignation letter confers no legal right to abandon a post. The respondents emphasized that the petitioner was explicitly informed that his resignation was rejected due to pending disciplinary matters. By failing to participate in the inquiry and refusing to rejoin, the petitioner demonstrated a willful disregard for service regulations.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of Judicial Review

The court observed that Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides only limited scope for interference in disciplinary inquiries. The court clarified that its role is not to act as an appellate authority re-appreciating evidence, but rather to ensure that the "decision-making process" adheres to natural justice and statutory rules.

The court noted that the petitioner’s claims of mala fides against the former Chief Minister carried no weight as the individual was never named as a party to the suit. Furthermore, the court held that without a provided justification for the persistent absence following the explicit rejection of his resignation, the disciplinary order could not be labeled as arbitrary.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the hierarchy of duties in public office, with Justice Anand Sharma noting the following:

> "It is a settled proposition of law that resignation tendered by a public servant cannot be construed as an absolute right to exit service, particularly when departmental proceedings for serious misconduct are under contemplation or actively pending."

> "The acceptance of resignation remains within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, who after weighing the larger public interest, the gravity of allegations and the necessity to uphold administrative discipline against the employee's convenience."

> "This Court does not find any procedural error or violation of principles of natural justice in the inquiry proceedings or in the passing of penalty order."

Final Verdict: Administrative Accountability Upheld

The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, confirming that the petitioner’s failure to engage with the disciplinary process, combined with his long, unauthorized absence, rendered his removal from service legally sound. The ruling serves as a stark reminder to public employees that resignation is subject to the approval of competent authorities and cannot be used as a shield to evade accountability once a disciplinary mechanism has been triggered.