Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972: r. 26(4) – Forfeiture of service on resignation – Withdrawal of resignation – On facts, the respondent tendered her resignation to contest election, and the resignation was accepted – She lost the election and thereafter, applied for withdrawal of resignation – Application was kept pending – She then filed writ petition wherein the High Court directed the authorities to deliberate upon and thereafter dispose of her request qua withdrawal of her resignation taking note of the judgment of the High Court in Nirmal Verma’s case – Respondent’s representation was rejected by the appellant on the ground that she was charge-sheeted for her involvement in political activities while working – Application thereagainst by the respondent – Allowed by the tribunal with a direction to the authorities to process the case of the respondent for withdrawal of her resignation and allow her to join duty as Assistant Teacher – Writ petition by the appellant – Rejection of, by the High Court holding that no enquiry was conducted against respondent and even vigilance clearance was granted to her before accepting her resignation – On appeal, held: There is no absolute bar on the employer in permitting withdrawal of resignation even after the same is accepted – Rule 26 does not contain any such provision – Resignation can become effective either by stipulation of law or by acceptance thereof – In the instant case, the first order of the High Court was a direction upon the employer to take a decision in terms of Nirmal Verma’s case which implies that her withdrawal plea was required to be examined within a given parameter and since the employer never challenged the direction laying down the scope within which they were to consider the withdrawal plea of the respondent, the right of the respondent to be considered within that parameter had crystallised – Authorities could not and did not, go beyond that parameter – Authorities, in the order of rejection, did not take the stand that once accepted, a resignation cannot be withdrawn – Appellants also did not reason their rejection order with the ground that there was no compelling reason for the respondent to tender her resignation – Both the fora opined that the respondent’s case could not be distinguished from the ratio of the case of Nirmal Verma’s case merely on the strength of issue of memorandum of charges against her – Resignation can become effective only on acceptance thereof and sub-rule (4) of r.
26 lays down situations in which there can be withdrawal even after resignation becomes effective – Respondent’s plea for withdrawal of resignation was rejected on grounds spelt out therein – Tribunal and the High Court found the reasoning of the appellant unsustainable – Judgment of the High Court sustaining the tribunal’s decision do not warrant any interference.
Nirmal Verma v. MCD and Anr. [Decision dated
18-03-2005 of Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.
3303/2003]; Directorate of Education v. Manisha Sharma [Decision dated 28-11-2019 of Delhi High Court in WP (C) 8494/2015]; State of Haryana and Others v. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321 –
referred to.
relied on
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.