Resignation letter cannot be withdrawn, once it is accepted: High Court of Delhi.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1835 2021 & CM APPL. 5273 2021 Date of Decision: 05.07.2021 BIJENDER YADAV Petitioner Through: Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj Adv. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh CGSC for UOI with Mr.Kavindra Gill GP for HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA MANMOHAN J.The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th May 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1503 2019. Petitioner also challenges the letter dated 17th January 2019 27th November 2019 and 01st November 2017 and prays for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Scientist ‘E’ with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the CAT failed to consider that the petitioner had neither resigned nor intended to resign from his post in Defence Research and Development Organisation DRDO) and the same is evident from the alleged resignation letter dated WP(C) 1835 2021 10th August 2017. He emphasizes that the petitioner by way of the said letter had only sought a transfer to a family station as his wife was unwell. He also submits that the CAT erred in holding that the petitioner could not withdraw his alleged resignation inasmuch as Rule 26(4) of CCS Temporary Services) Rules 1965 permits a government servant to withdraw his resignation prior to its acceptance. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Scientist ‘E’ in DRDO on ad hoc basis on 09th August 2016 at an establishment in Gaya Bihar. He sought extensions to join and finally joined on 10th April 2017 only i.e. after a gap of nearly eight months. Even after the delayed joining the petitioner remained absent on various dates on the grounds ranging from his illness to his wife and parents illness as well as due to a new born baby. The petitioner vide letter dated 10th August 2017 requested the respondents to either transfer him or to accept his resignation. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner remained absent from service after submitting the letter dated 10th August 2017. The said letter is reproduced hereinbelow: “Subject: Request for Transfer Notice of Termination of Service to the Post of Scientist E in DRDO issued to appointing authority under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Kind Attn: Director SPIC &Joint Director Admin 1. Reference to your letter DOP 05 56069 115109 dated 30 Aug 2016 17 Jan 2017 and 22 Mar 2017 regarding appointment to the Post of Scientist E in DRDO. Rules 2. The Extension of adhoc appointment upto 31st Dec 2017 was WP(C) 1835 2021 DOP 05 56069 115109 Dated 30Jun 2017. 3. Sir Due to my personal family requirements my presence is required in Delhi. Earlier I manage things by visiting my home from gaya on weekly or 15 days basis. Sometimes taking helps from relatives. But now it will not possible for me to visit every week due to that far location of site or asking people to support. 4. I request you kindly transfer me in Delhi or nearby Delhi in Haryana Chandigarh Rajasthan state anywhere Uttaranchal if any site is there. If it is not possible in SPIC then kindly consider to give me a transfer in some another DRDO. I need this transfer because Indeed initial 2 years to settle things on family side. 5. In case it is not possible as mentioned in point 4 In terms of Para 3 of reference lettersabove and in pursuance of sub rule of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services rules 1965 I hereby give notice to the termination of appointment with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of this letter. 6. Hence the undersigned may be released of all duties w.e.f 10th September 2017.” emphasis supplied) It is the respondents’ case that the resignation was accepted on 01st November 2017 and communicated on 07th November 2017 i.e. prior to the petitioner withdrawing his resignation on 02nd November 2017. The competent authority’s letter dated 01st November 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: “1. Reference your letter No.SPIC Admin VTR r 2017 dated 08 Sep 2017. 2. Competent Authority has accepted notice given by Sh. Bijender Yadav Sc ‘E’ SPIC Delhi for termination of temporary service under Rule 5 of CCSRules 1965 with effect WP(C) 1835 2021 from 10 Sep 20171835 2021 

Summary: When a resignation letter has been submitted as well as it has been accepted, and such acceptance has been duly communicated, then later the employee cannot withdraw the resignation letter. A divisional bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla, in the matter of Bijendra Yadav Vs. Union of India and ANR (W.P.(C) 1835/2021), dealt with an issue where a writ petition had been filed challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on 14th May 2019. In the present case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal to pray for a direction of the court to the respondent, to reinstate the petition in the service as Scientist ‘E’ with all consequential benefits. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the CAT had failed to consider that the petitioner neither resigned nor intended to resign from his post in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), rather the petitioner by the letter of 10th August 2017, had meant to seek a transfer to a family station as his wife was unwell. Further, a paper book revealed that the petitioner was appointed as scientist ‘E’, on an adhoc basis on 9th August 2016. He sought extensions to join and after the delayed joining, the petitioner used to remain absent on multiple days due to family reasons. In the letter of 10th August 2017, the petitioner requested to either transfer him or accept his resignation. As per the Respondent, the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation letter on 2nd November 2017. But, prior to his withdrawal, the resignation was accepted on 1st November 2017 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 7th November 2017. The court upheld the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that the petitioner cannot withdraw his resignation after it had been accepted. The court was also of the view that-“ a sensitive and highly Specialized Organisation cannot afford to have a reluctant and wavering scientist”. Thereby the court dismissed the writ petition along with the pending application.    Click Here For The Judgement