Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 149 (ALL)

SRI KANT TIWARI v. STATE OF Uttar Pradesh

2018-01-16

PANKAJ MITHAL, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner is a Medical Officer. He submitted an application dated 25.1.2017 for his resignation. The said application has been turned down by the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Services, Uttar Pradesh Government. 2. The petitioner has challenged the above order by means of this petition. 3. One of the grounds for challenge is that the resignation was in accordance with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the same was not liable to be refused on account of shortage of doctors in the department. 4. Learned Standing Counsel was given time on 9.1.2018 to seek instructions in the matter. She has obtained instructions and in the instructions also it has come that the resignation of the petitioner has not been accepted on account of shortage of doctors in the department. It has further been stated that the petitioner is running a private hospital. 5. The correctness/validity of the impugned order has to be adjudged on the basis of the reasons contained therein. The reasons for refusing to accept the resignation of the petitioner cannot be added or supplemented by any other means. Therefore, the only ground on which the respondents have refused to accept his resignation is shortage of doctors in the department. 6. The only dispute is whether the resignation can be refused on the above ground. 7. The Rules provides for the method of resignation by the Government servant and the terms and conditions under which the resignation can be accepted or refused. 8. In this regard Rules 4 and 5 are relevant. Rule 4 of the Rules provide that a Government Servant can resign from his service by giving unconditional three months notice. 9. Rule 5 of the Rules prescribes the ground on which the resignation can be refused. 10. The aforesaid Rule 5 of the Rules for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereinbelow : “Acceptance or refusal of resignation—(1) The resignation of the Government servant shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and formal order is issued thereof. 10. The aforesaid Rule 5 of the Rules for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereinbelow : “Acceptance or refusal of resignation—(1) The resignation of the Government servant shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and formal order is issued thereof. The appointing authority may, in this discretion, refuse to accept the resignation, if- (i) the Government servants owes to the Government any sum of money and/or any other liability unless the amount due has been paid or the liability discharged, or (ii) the Government servant is under suspension, or (iii) any inquiry is contemplated or pending against him, (iv) investigation, inquiry or trial relating to criminal charge is pending and such charge connected with his official position as the Government servant. (2) The appointing authority shall, as far as possible take decision on the request of resignation before the expiry of the period of notice.” 11. A plain and simple reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that a resignation of a Government servant is not effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and a formal order is issued in that regard. It also provides that the appointing authority can refuse to accept the resignation of a Government servant inter alia only on the four grounds contained therein. 12. In the case at hand, the petitioner neither owes any sum or any liability to the Government, he is not under suspension nor any inquiry is contemplated against him and at the same time he is not facing any investigation, inquiry or trial in relation to any criminal charge. Therefore, none of the grounds mentioned in Rule 5 of the Rules apply so as to refuse to accept his resignation. Shortage of doctors or the working hands is not a ground for refusing resignation. 13. In view of above, none of the ground mentioned under Rule 5 of the Rules for refusing to accept the resignation of a Government servant exists. 14. Thus, in the absence of anyone of the grounds enumerated above, the respondents are not justified in refusing to accept the resignation of the petitioner on the ground of shortage of doctors in the department which otherwise is in order. 15. In these circumstances, the order impugned dated 21.11.2017 is not tenable in law and is hereby quashed. 14. Thus, in the absence of anyone of the grounds enumerated above, the respondents are not justified in refusing to accept the resignation of the petitioner on the ground of shortage of doctors in the department which otherwise is in order. 15. In these circumstances, the order impugned dated 21.11.2017 is not tenable in law and is hereby quashed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is accordingly directed to be issued with further direction to the respondent No. 1 consider the resignation of the petitioner and to issue a formal order in that regard, if necessary, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 16. The Writ Petition is allowed.