Delhi High Court: A petition was filed to consider whether it is permissible for any employer to process the resignation request which it had earlier declined to process. A division bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain, JJ., held that the earlier resignation request, being turned down, albeit, for want of certain particulars, it was no longer obligatory for the petitioner to have submitted any formal application seeking withdrawal of his resignation request.
The case revolved around the petitioner, an Assistant Commandant/Medical Officer, who joined Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 15-07-2008. His wife, also a Medical Officer, was employed by SSB. The couple faced challenges due to their specially abled child, necessitating constant supervision. The petitioner consistently requested postings alongside his wife, but these requests were not always granted. Facing difficulties in his posting at the 28th Battalion, SSB in Antagarh, Chhattisgarh, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 04-11-2020. His resignation cited personal liabilities and health conditions, with a three-month notice period.
The petitioner resignation was not immediately processed. Instead, the respondents (SSB) requested him to submit a fresh resignation application with specific details, such as the intended date of resignation, to be sent at least 30 days before that date. This request was conveyed via a letter dated 12-12-2020. However, the petitioner did not submit a fresh application. He instead sought a personal hearing with the Director General (DG) of SSB and requested a transfer on compassionate grounds. Despite his inaction regarding the fresh application, the respondents unilaterally processed and accepted his original resignation on 04-02-2021, which led to filing a writ petition.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the respondents had initially declined to process his resignation request, as evidenced by the communication dated 12-12-2020. They had requested him to submit a fresh application with specific details, indicating a refusal to process the original request. The respondents argued that since the petitioner did not submit a formal application seeking withdrawal of his resignation, there was no prohibition on them processing the initial resignation request. They asserted that his application had been forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for acceptance, in accordance with Rule 28 of the SSB Rules, 2009.
The Court analyzed the communication between the petitioner and the respondents and emphasized that the respondents had explicitly declined to process the original resignation request due to missing particulars, and instead requested a fresh application. Therefore, there was no justification for them to accept the initial resignation without a new application. The Court referred to relevant legal provisions and highlighted that while withdrawal of resignation is not explicitly barred, it should be considered in light of the circumstances. Additionally, in the context of the Sashastra Seema Bal, resignations are subject to approval by the Central Government.
The Court remarked that “In the case in hand, for the reasons best known to the respondents they did not act upon the resignation request and rather directed the petitioner to submit application afresh while mentioning specific date from which he intended to proceed on resignation and also asked him that such application should reach them 30 days before to the intended date of resignation so as to process the resignation case with MHA in time. As noted already, the petitioner did not choose to submit any application afresh. He rather decided to continue in service and made twin request i.e. personal hearing from DG, Sashastra Seema Bal, and also transfer on compassionate grounds. In such a peculiar backdrop, the respondents were estopped from taking any further action, unless they had received a fresh request. Thus, they had no reason/cause to process his previous application which had, obviously, become stale and non-est. Such action of respondents is, therefore, totally impermissible in the eyes of law.”
Thus, the Court held that the respondents’ acceptance of the original resignation without a fresh application was impermissible. It ordered the reversal of the resignation acceptance, deeming the petitioner to be in service and entitled to all consequential benefits.
[Rakesh Kumar Bharatiya v. UOI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1621, decided on 06-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vanya and Ms. Kashish, Advocates. SI S Sarkar, SSB. SI Naresh Solanki, SSB.
