Police Resignation Without Two-Month Notice Held Invalid by Allahabad High Court

Procedural Safeguards in Police Service

In a significant ruling concerning the service conditions of police personnel, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the two-month notice period required for resignation under Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861. Justice Vikas Budhwar observed that any resignation failing to adhere to this statutory notice is void, enabling officers to effectively withdraw their request before it is legally perfected.

Case Background

The petitioner, Ajeet Singh, was originally appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police in 2010. In 2017, following a selection process, he joined the U.P. Civil Police as a Sub-Inspector. Seeking to return to his former post in Delhi due to personal medical challenges, the petitioner submitted an application on December 28, 2017, requesting to be relieved of his duties.

The local police authorities treated this request as a resignation, accepted it on January 20, 2018, and subsequently initiated a recovery of training and salary costs amounting to Rs. 4,97,600. When the petitioner attempted to withdraw his resignation on February 15, 2018, his request was denied, leading to a long-standing legal battle that reached the High Court .

Arguments Presented

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the resignation letter was invalid because it lacked the requisite two-month notice period and was conditional—contingent upon his repatriation to the Delhi Police . Relying on precedents such as * Satya Paul Kalra vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police * and * Dinesh Kumar vs. Commandant 15th Battalion *, the petitioner contended that a resignation short of the statutory notice is not legally binding.

The State countered that the petitioner’s resignation had already been formally accepted by the competent authority, and subsequently, it was not open to the petitioner to withdraw the same after the acceptance was communicated.

Legal Analysis

The Court examined Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861, and Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations . Both provisions clearly state that a police officer may not resign without giving at least two months' written notice of their intention to do so. The High Court clarified that these regulations exist for the protection of both the employer and the employee, allowing for an administrative transition period and, crucially, a window for the employee to reconsider their decision.

The Court held that the respondents failed to honor the mandatory notice period, rendering the resignation process procedurally defective from its inception.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the strict application of police service rules:

• "On a strict interpretation of Section 9 , the notice must precede the resignation."
• "The purpose of giving two months' notice by the employee is two fold. One it gives the employer an opportunity to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the employee and the other it gives an opportunity to the employee to re-think as to whether he may continue with the resignation."
• "No police officer possesses a liberty to withdraw himself from the duties of his office, unless explicitly allowed to do so by District Superintendent or by some other police officer authorized to grant such permission... unless he has given to the superior office a notice in writing of his intention to resign."
• "Once the notice was defective and not in conformity with the provisions... then it could not have been taken notice of."

Court's Decision

Setting aside the orders dated January 20, 2018, and June 22, 2022, the Court allowed the writ petition. The High Court directed that the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits admissible under the law, to be disbursed within four months. This decision underscores that statutory procedural requirements are non-negotiable, and administrative authorities cannot sidestep the mandatory notice period to act on premature or defective resignation requests.