Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Resignation: Kamlesh Rani Bhatla vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (23 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 282

Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can an employee withdraw their resignation after it has been accepted by the employer? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the employer’s rejection of the withdrawal was valid, particularly when the rejection was based on a ground different from the legality of the withdrawal itself. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari delivered the judgment, with Justice Aniruddha Bose authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Kamlesh Rani Bhatla, the respondent, was working as an Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government. On 22nd March 2012, she resigned from her post to contest the Municipal Corporation of Delhi elections. Her resignation was accepted on 29th March 2012, with effect 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

The respondent initially filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was disposed of on 20th March 2014, directing 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.. On 14th May 2015, the Deputy Director of Education rejected her plea, stating her case was not similar to that of Nirmal Verma. The Central Administrative Tribunal, on 20th March 2017, allowed her plea, relying on Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Nirmal Verma case. The Tribunal held that the chargesheet issued to her was not a valid ground to reject her withdrawal request, especially since vigilance clearance was granted. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This rule deals with the forfeiture of service upon resignation and the conditions under which a resignation can be withdrawn. Sub-rule (1) states that resignation entails forfeiture of past service unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest. Sub-rule (4) specifies the conditions under which the appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw their resignation in the public interest. These conditions include:

• That the resignation was tendered for compelling reasons not reflecting on integrity, efficiency, or conduct.
• That the request for withdrawal is due to a material change in circumstances.
• That the conduct of the person was not improper during the intervening period.
• That the period of absence from duty is not more than ninety days.
• That the vacated post or a comparable post is available.

Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 stipulates:

“26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.-
(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.
(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past s ervice if
it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
another appointment, whether temporary or permanent,
under the Government where service qualifies.
(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under su b-rule
(2), due to the two appointments being at different
stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under
the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of
any kind due to the Government servant on the date of
relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the
period is not covered by leave due to him.
(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.”

Arguments

The appellant, the Government of NCT of Delhi, argued that the respondent’s case was distinguishable from the case of Nirmal Verma because a chargesheet had been issued against her prior to her resignation. The chargesheet alleged her involvement in political activities during her service, violating Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The government also 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 valid. The government argued that the respondent had voluntarily resigned to contest elections, and there was no compulsion to do so.

The respondent, Kamlesh Rani Bhatla, argued that the chargesheet should not be a ground to reject her withdrawal request, as the authorities had granted her vigilance clearance, implying no objection to her contesting the election. She relied on the Nirmal Verma case, where the High Court had allowed the withdrawal of resignation under similar circumstances. The Tribunal and the High Court accepted her argument, stating that the chargesheet was not a sufficient reason to deny her withdrawal request, especially since the resignation was accepted with vigilance clearance.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that the vigilance clearance given to her by the department before accepting her resignation estopped the authorities from taking the plea of pendency of chargesheet against her.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in sustaining the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order allowing the respondent to withdraw her resignation. The implicit issues were:

1. Whether the chargesheet issued against the respondent was a valid ground to reject her withdrawal request.
2. Whether the ratio of Manisha Sharma case was applicable in the present case.
3. Whether the employer could reject the withdrawal request on grounds other than those considered by the High Court in its initial order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Nirmal Verma vs. MCD and Anr. (Delhi High Court): The Delhi High Court had allowed the withdrawal of resignation in a similar case, considering the rule position. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had directed the authorities to consider this case while deciding the respondent’s plea.
• Directorate of Education vs. Manisha Sharma (Delhi High Court): The Delhi High Court 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 valid. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from the present case.
• State of Haryana and others vs. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321] (Supreme Court): This case was cited in Manisha Sharma (supra) for the proposition that once resignation has been acted upon, there is no question of permitting a person to withdraw such resignation.
• Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: The court analyzed this rule, particularly sub-rule (4), which specifies the conditions under which a resignation can be withdrawn.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the employer was bound by the parameters set by the High Court in its initial order, which directed the authorities to consider the Nirmal Verma case. The Court found that the rejection of the respondent’s withdrawal request based on the chargesheet was not justified, especially since vigilance clearance had been granted. The Court also held that the ratio of Manisha Sharma was not applicable to the present case, as the employer had not challenged the parameters set by the High Court. The Court emphasized that Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allows withdrawal of resignation even after acceptance under certain conditions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspect of the case. The fact that the High Court had earlier directed the authorities to consider the Nirmal Verma case and the authorities had not challenged this direction weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also emphasized that the employer could not introduce new grounds for rejection that were not part of the initial consideration parameters. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the vigilance clearance was granted to the respondent, which implied that the chargesheet was not a significant impediment. The court also emphasized that Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allows withdrawal of resignation even after acceptance under certain conditions.

The Court considered the interpretation of Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows for the withdrawal of resignation even after it has been accepted, under certain conditions. The Court noted that “sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 envisages certain situations wherein withdrawal of resignation might be permitted even after the same is accepted.” The Court also observed that “Resignation can become effective either by stipulation of law or by acceptance thereof.” The Court emphasized that in this case, the resignation became effective only on acceptance, and sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 lays down situations in which there can be withdrawal even after resignation becomes effective.

The Supreme Court also noted that the authorities, “did not take the stand that once accepted, a resignation cannot be withdrawn.” The court further observed that “the appellants also did not reason their rejection order with the ground that there was no compelling reason for the respondent to tender her resignation.”

Key Takeaways

• Employers must adhere to the parameters set by the courts when considering withdrawal of resignation requests.
• Vigilance clearance can be a significant factor in determining the validity of a rejection of a withdrawal request.
• Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allows for the withdrawal of resignation even after acceptance under certain conditions.
• Employers cannot introduce new grounds for rejection that were not part of the initial consideration parameters.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but it upheld the High Court’s decision, which in turn sustained the Tribunal’s order to allow the respondent to withdraw her resignation and rejoin duty.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employer is bound by the parameters set by the court when considering a request for withdrawal of resignation, and that the employer cannot introduce new grounds for rejection that were not part of the initial consideration parameters. The judgment also clarifies that Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allows for the withdrawal of resignation even after acceptance under certain conditions. This case does not overrule any previous positions of law, but it clarifies the interpretation and application of Rule 26(4) and emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in administrative decisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow Kamlesh Rani Bhatla to withdraw her resignation. The Court emphasized that the employer was bound by the parameters set by the High Court in its initial order and could not introduce new grounds for rejection. The Court also clarified that Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, allows for the withdrawal of resignation even after acceptance under certain conditions. This case highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the need for employers to adhere to the parameters set by the courts.