Supreme Court Clarifies Resignation Withdrawal Rules for Tamil Nadu Police: Director General of Police vs. M Jeyanthi (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 979

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J

Can a government employee withdraw their resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority, even if the notice period has not expired? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a police constable in Tamil Nadu. This case clarifies the rules regarding resignation and withdrawal in the context of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.

The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in allowing the employee to withdraw her resignation after the resignation was accepted but before the expiry of the notice period. The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, which governs resignations of police personnel. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, and Hrishikesh Roy, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The respondent, M Jeyanthi, was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable in the IXth Battalion, Manimuthar, Palayamkottai, on 1 April 2010. She was working at the All Women’s Police Station, Thoothukudi, when she tendered her resignation on 1 June 2017. She requested to be relieved from her job, and her resignation was accepted on 12 June 2017. Subsequently, on 13 July 2017, she attempted to withdraw her resignation.

After her request to withdraw the resignation was not accepted, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, which directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to consider her representation. The DGP rejected her request on 2 June 2018, citing Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services. This decision was challenged in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the respondent’s writ appeal, ordering her reinstatement with continuity of service. The High Court relied on Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, stating that the 90-day notice period was meant to allow the employee to reconsider their decision. The High Court found fault with the appellants for accepting the resignation without waiting for the notice period to expire.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Police to consider her representation regarding the withdrawal of her resignation. After the DGP rejected her representation, the respondent filed another writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the single judge’s order and directing the State to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service. The Division Bench based its decision on Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, stating that the 90-day notice period was meant to allow the employee to reconsider their decision. This decision of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court primarily focused on Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, which governs the resignation process for police personnel. Rule 35A states:

“35AAcceptance of Resignation
(a) The member of the service may resign his appointment by giving notice of not less than three months in writing direct to the appointing authority with a copy marked to his immediate Superior Officer. The period of three months notice shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of such notice by the appointing authority.
(b) The member of the service may withdraw the notice of his resignation before its acceptance. Withdrawal of resignation will not be permitted after its acceptance by the appointing authority.
(c) The appointing authority shall issue orders on the notice of resignation before the date of expiry of notice either accepting the resignation from a date not later than the date of expiry of the notice or rejecting the same, giving the reasons thereof. If no such order is passed, the resignation shall be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the period of notice.”

The Court noted that this rule is analogous to Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, which the High Court had relied upon. The key aspects of Rule 35A, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, are:

• A resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance.
• Once the resignation is accepted, the employee loses the right to withdraw it.
• The appointing authority can accept the resignation from a date before the expiry of the notice period.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Director General of Police):

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in applying Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, as the respondent was governed by Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.
• They contended that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 50(2) of the Act.
• The appellants emphasized that once the resignation was accepted, the respondent could not withdraw it.

Arguments by the Respondent (M Jeyanthi):

• The respondent argued that the acceptance of her resignation on 12 June 2017 was not valid because it was subject to clearances from the Vigilance and other departments.
• She supported the High Court’s reasoning that the 90-day notice period allowed the employee to withdraw their resignation before the notice period expired.
• The respondent contended that the acceptance of the resignation before the expiry of the notice period did not affect her right to withdraw it.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that an employee could withdraw their resignation within the notice period, even after it had been accepted by the appointing authority.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services. The Court clarified that the rule explicitly states that a resignation can be withdrawn only before its acceptance by the appointing authority. Once accepted, the employee loses the right to withdraw the resignation. The Court also considered the analogous provision in Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, but emphasized that Rule 35A was the relevant provision for the respondent.

Judgment

The Court held that the High Court’s interpretation was incorrect. The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 35A clearly states that a resignation can be withdrawn only before it is accepted by the appointing authority. Once accepted, the employee’s right to withdraw the resignation is extinguished. The Court stated that:

“The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 35A make it abundantly clear that: (i) A resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance; and (ii) Upon acceptance, the employee loses the entitlement to withdraw the resignation.”

The Court further clarified that the appointing authority has the power to accept the resignation from a date before the expiry of the notice period. The Court noted that:

“In other words, the authority can legitimately accept the resignation from a date anterior to the expiry of the notice. Upon the acceptance of the resignation, the cessation of service takes place and it is not open to the employee to withdraw the resignation.”

The Supreme Court also addressed the respondent’s claim that the acceptance of the resignation was invalid because it was subject to clearances. The Court stated:

“The fact of the matter, however, is that the acceptance of the resignation was complete on 12 June 2017. Once this was the position, the withdrawal was of no consequence in law.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition by the single judge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by a strict interpretation of Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services. The Court emphasized the plain and unambiguous language of the rule, which clearly states that a resignation can be withdrawn only before its acceptance. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• Literal Interpretation: The Court adhered to a literal interpretation of Rule 35A, emphasizing that the rule explicitly states that the right to withdraw a resignation is lost upon its acceptance.
• Clarity of the Rule: The Court highlighted that the rule is clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for the interpretation adopted by the High Court.
• Importance of Acceptance: The Court underscored the significance of the acceptance of the resignation, stating that it is a definitive act that concludes the employment relationship.
• Rejection of High Court’s Reasoning: The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the notice period allows for withdrawal even after acceptance, stating that this interpretation was contrary to the explicit language of Rule 35A.

Key Takeaways

• A police constable in Tamil Nadu cannot withdraw their resignation once it has been accepted by the appointing authority, even if the notice period has not expired.
• Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services clearly states that the right to withdraw a resignation is lost upon its acceptance.
• The appointing authority can accept the resignation from a date before the expiry of the notice period.
• The judgment clarifies the legal position regarding resignation and withdrawal in the context of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.
• This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific rules governing service conditions.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that its order would not prevent the respondent from applying for a fresh appointment in the future, and that any such application should be considered in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, a resignation cannot be withdrawn after it has been accepted by the appointing authority, regardless of whether the notice period has expired. This clarifies the position of law and sets aside the High Court’s interpretation that allowed for withdrawal within the notice period even after acceptance. This judgment reinforces the principle that once a resignation is accepted, the employment relationship is terminated, and the employee loses the right to withdraw their resignation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Director General of Police vs. M Jeyanthi clarifies the rules regarding the withdrawal of resignation for police personnel in Tamil Nadu. The Court held that once a resignation is accepted by the appointing authority, the employee cannot withdraw it, even if the notice period has not expired. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific rules governing service conditions and provides clarity on the legal position regarding resignation and withdrawal in the context of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.