Supreme Court allows withdrawal of resignation: Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla (23 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 228
Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J., Krishna Murari, J.
Can an employee withdraw their resignation after it has been accepted by the employer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an Assistant Teacher who resigned to contest elections and then sought to rejoin her post. The court examined whether the employer could reject the withdrawal request based on a charge sheet issued before the resignation, and whether the employer could introduce a new reason for rejection during the appeal. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Krishna Murari.

Case Background

The respondent, Kamlesh Rani Bhatla, was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school under the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government. On 22nd March 2012, she resigned from her position to participate in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi elections as a Councillor. Her resignation was accepted on 29th March 2012, effective from 22nd March 2012. After losing the election in April 2012, she applied to withdraw her resignation on 21st April 2012 and rejoin her post. This request was kept pending, despite several reminders in 2013 and 2014.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which directed the authorities to decide on her request for withdrawal of resignation. The High Court also directed the authorities to consider the judgment in the case of Nirmal Verma vs. MCD and Anr.. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education rejected her plea on 14th May 2015, citing that her case could not be equated with the Nirmal Verma case due to a charge sheet issued against her. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) then allowed her plea, relying on Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Nirmal Verma judgment. The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT’s decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which deals with the forfeiture of service on resignation. The relevant sub-rules are:

• Rule 26(1): “Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.”
• Rule 26(4): “The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:
  (i) That the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation;
  (ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;
  (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days;
  (iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.”

The Court also considered the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, specifically Rule 3, which deals with the conduct of government servants. The charge sheet against the respondent alleged that she violated Rule 3 by participating in political activities during her duty hours.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the case of Nirmal Verma was distinguishable because, unlike in that case, a charge sheet had been issued to the respondent for violating the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
• The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Directorate of Education vs. Manisha Sharma, which held that once a resignation is accepted and acted upon, it cannot be withdrawn, and that there must be a material change in circumstances for a withdrawal to be allowed.
• The appellant contended that the respondent’s resignation was voluntary, as she wanted to contest the election, and there was no compulsion for her to resign.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the authorities had granted her vigilance clearance, allowing her to contest the MCD elections. This implied that there were no issues with her conduct at the time of her resignation.
• The respondent contended that if the authorities had concerns about the charge sheet, they should not have accepted her resignation in the first place.
• The respondent relied on the Nirmal Verma judgment, which allowed the withdrawal of resignation under similar circumstances.
• The respondent argued that all conditions under Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were satisfied, and hence the rejection of her withdrawal was not reasonable.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that the authorities were estopped from taking the plea of pendency of chargesheet against the applicant after having given the vigilance clearance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

1. Whether the employer could reject the withdrawal of resignation based on a charge sheet issued before the resignation.
2. Whether the employer could introduce a new reason for rejection (that the resignation was voluntary and not due to compelling reasons) during the appeal, when the initial rejection was based on the charge sheet.
3. Whether the ratio of Manisha Sharma is applicable to the present case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
• Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the respondent to withdraw her resignation. The Court held that the employer could not introduce a new reason for rejection during the appeal process and was bound by the parameters set by the High Court in the first round of litigation. The Court also held that the ratio of Manisha Sharma could not be applied to the present case because the employer had not raised this ground in the initial rejection order.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court agreed with the ratio in Nirmal Verma vs. MCD and Anr., [W.P.(C) No.3303/2003] which allowed the withdrawal of resignation under similar circumstances.
• The Court accepted the interpretation of Rule 26(4) in Directorate of Education -vs- Manisha Sharma, [W.P. (C) 8494/2015] as a correct proposition of law, but found it inapplicable to the present case due to the specific facts and circumstances.
• The Court did not apply the principle in State of Haryana and others -vs- Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321] which held that once a resignation has been accepted and acted upon, it cannot be withdrawn, to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The employer’s initial rejection order was based solely on the charge sheet issued to the respondent, and they did not raise any other grounds for rejection.
• The High Court’s earlier order had set the parameters within which the employer was to consider the respondent’s withdrawal request, and the employer had accepted these parameters without challenge.
• The employer could not introduce a new reason for rejection during the appeal, especially one that was not part of the initial rejection order.
• The Court found that the employer had granted vigilance clearance to the respondent, which implied that there were no issues with her conduct at the time of her resignation.

The Court emphasized that the employer was bound by the parameters set in the first round of litigation. The Court stated, “The boundary within which the authorities were to examine the incumbent’s plea was not questioned by the authorities before any forum. On the other hand, they accepted the said parameter and rejected the plea thereby confining their consideration within the boundary demarcated by the High Court.” The Court also noted that, “the authorities, in the order of rejection, did not take the stand that once accepted, a resignation cannot be withdrawn.” Furthermore, the Court clarified that, “as per the said provision, we do not find there is absolute bar on the employer in permitting withdrawal of resignation even after the same is accepted.”

Key Takeaways

• An employer cannot introduce a new reason for rejecting an employee’s withdrawal of resignation during the appeal process if that reason was not part of the initial rejection order.
• Employers are bound by the parameters set by the courts in previous rounds of litigation and cannot go beyond those parameters.
• Granting vigilance clearance to an employee implies that there are no issues with their conduct at the time of resignation.
• Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, allows the withdrawal of resignation under specific conditions, even after the resignation has been accepted.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions, except to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employer cannot introduce new grounds for rejection of a withdrawal of resignation during an appeal, especially if the initial rejection was based on different grounds and the employer accepted the parameters set by the court in the first round of litigation. The Court also clarified that Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, does not impose an absolute bar on the withdrawal of resignation even after acceptance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing Kamlesh Rani Bhatla to withdraw her resignation and rejoin her post. The Court emphasized that the employer was bound by the parameters set in the first round of litigation and could not introduce new reasons for rejection during the appeal. This judgment clarifies the scope of Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and provides important guidelines for employers when considering requests for withdrawal of resignation.