Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 833 (RAJ)

Hemant Dhand v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-04-13

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. The petitioner has filed instant writ petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Gr.12), Government of Rajasthan, whereby the resignation submitted by him was accepted w.e.f. 02.12.2014. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Gr.12), Government of Rajasthan, whereby his request for withdrawal of his resignation was not entertained. Further, the petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the decision No.1(d) of the Government upon Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951'). 2. Petitioner appeared in person submitted that on 11.06.2001 he was appointed on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail on probation of two years and after completion of his probation period he was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 29.01.2004. He submitted that he was transferred from one place to other in a short span. That apart from lot of work of District and Central Jails where he was posted, additional work of other jails was also given to him. On 22.08.2014 he submitted an application before the competent authority in which he prayed to accept his resignation from service w.e.f. 02.12.2014. He submitted that vide order dated 26.11.2014 the resignation submitted by him was accepted to be effective from 02.12.2014. He submitted his resignation under the compelling circumstances and under great pain and suffering in ligament knee injury and because of aforesaid it was not possible for him to continue in service. He submitted that he made applications for withdrawal of his resignation, which were illegally rejected by the respondents. He has also submitted that many posts on which he was working are lying vacant. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon following judgments:- (i) Dr. Prabha Atri v. The State of U.P. & Ors., S.L.P (C) Nos. 10035-10036 of 2002, decided on 11.12.2002; (ii) Ramchand Nihalchand Advani v. Anandlal Bapalal Kothari & Anr., Special Civil Appln. No.168 of 1961, decided on 11.04.1961; (iii) Dr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (SBCW P.No. 13303/2013), decided on 08.11.2013; (iv) M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. 10035-10036 of 2002, decided on 11.12.2002; (ii) Ramchand Nihalchand Advani v. Anandlal Bapalal Kothari & Anr., Special Civil Appln. No.168 of 1961, decided on 11.04.1961; (iii) Dr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (SBCW P.No. 13303/2013), decided on 08.11.2013; (iv) M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd. Kalpi Road, Kanpur v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 307 of 1987, decided on 27.07.1990; and (v) Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1137 of 2018, decided on February 10, 2022. 3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the government decision No.1(d) upon Rule 22 of the Rules of 1951, if a State employee relinquishes his service and resigns, any request made after its acceptance for withdrawal of the resignation, cannot be entertained and considered. Counsel further submitted that the vacancy of posts cannot be a basis of re-employment in the State services. 4. Considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The issue which arose on the basis of pleadings and arguments of the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents for consideration of this Court is 'Whether an employee can be allowed to withdraw his resignation which has been accepted and come into operation on the date it was to be effective?. 6. For the decision of the issue involved in this petition as stated above, reference of decision No.1(d) upon Rule 22 of the Rules of 1951 is very necessary, which reads as under:- "Government of Rajasthan's Decisions: [1. Questions have been raised from time to time regarding the authority competent to accept a resignation, the circumstances under which resignation should be accepted, the date when a resignation becomes effective, and the authority competent to permit a Government servant to withdraw a resignation which he has already tendered. The following instructions are therefore issued for information and guidance of all concerned: (a) " " " (b) " " " (c) " " " (d) Authority competent to permit withdrawal of resignation: A resignation becomes ineffective when it is accepted and Government servant is relieved of his duties. The following instructions are therefore issued for information and guidance of all concerned: (a) " " " (b) " " " (c) " " " (d) Authority competent to permit withdrawal of resignation: A resignation becomes ineffective when it is accepted and Government servant is relieved of his duties. When resignation has become effective, a Government servant ceases to be in Government service; and any request made subsequently for withdrawal of resignation shall not be entertained and considered." 7. In the present case, the petitioner submitted an application on 22.08.2014 to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur through Additional Director General & Inspector General, Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in which he prayed to accept his resignation with effect from 02.12.2014. The petitioner submitted first representation for withdrawal of his resignation on 29.02.2016 i.e. after approx two years from the date on which his resignation was made effective and he was not in service. The petitioner submitted another representation on 05.05.2016. Both the representations were submitted by the petitioner to the Minister of the Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. One more representation dated 05.05.2016 was submitted by the petitioner to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated dated 5.12.2017 to Hon'ble the Chief Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, and so also other representations. 8. It is to be noted that the Government decision clearly speaks that a resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and Government servant is relieved of his duties. Once a Government servant ceases to be in Government service, any request made subsequently for withdrawal of resignation shall not be entertained and considered. 9. In view of the specific provision in the Government decisions, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation. The petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality in rejection of his application in regard to withdrawal of his resignation and only submitted that since the posts are lying vacant, he should be permitted to withdraw his resignation. 10. In the case of Dr. Prabha Atri (supra), as referred by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the rule which requires three months notice for or deposit of three months pay if employee wants to quit immediately. 10. In the case of Dr. Prabha Atri (supra), as referred by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the rule which requires three months notice for or deposit of three months pay if employee wants to quit immediately. In the present case, there is no such rule in operation, and therefore, the same is not applicable to the present case. 11. The case of Ramchand Nihalchand Advani (supra) relates to the Councillors of the Baroda Municipality, which is not related to the service conditions of an employee. Therefore, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. The case of Dr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar (supra) pertains to the admission in in-service quota when no leave is due under the Rajasthan Service Rules. Hence, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd. Kalpi Road, Kanpur (supra) pertains to the issue that whether the termination brought about amount to 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(s) read with Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the same has no bearing to this matter. 14. In the case of Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (supra), the petitioner therein tendered her resignation on 15th July 2014, which was accepted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 17th July 2014, which was intimated to the petitioner on 18th July 2014. In that case, immediately after the petitioner resigned on 15th July 2014, she made a representation to the Hon'ble the President of India as well as the Chief Justice of India, with a copy to the Chief Justice of the MP High Court, with the prayer to reconsider the circumstances under which she was coerced and exerted duress upon, until the only option she had to resign. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the matter has been decided only on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances as were found in that matter. In that case the petitioner submitted a representation within a short span of 15 days for reconsideration of her resignation application. 15. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the matter has been decided only on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances as were found in that matter. In that case the petitioner submitted a representation within a short span of 15 days for reconsideration of her resignation application. 15. In the present case, the application for resignation was submitted by the petitioner on 22.08.2014, which was accepted vide order dated 26.11.2014 to be effective from 02.12.2014 and the application for withdrawal of the resignation was submitted after a lapse of near about two years and out of service since 02.12.2014. Hence, the case of Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is not applicable to the present case. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chand Mal Chayal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 258 has observed that once a resignation of a Government employee is accepted, he cannot claim as a matter of right to be re-employed. 17. The service conditions of an employee are governed by the Rules, Notifications or the Government decisions. As regards the withdrawal of resignation after its acceptance and operation, the petitioner could not show any such Rule, Notification or Government decision. 18. After acceptance of resignation and relieved from service w.e.f. 02.12.2014, no relationship of an employee and employer remains between the petitioner and the State. Thus, the order of rejection of application of withdrawal of resignation suffers no illegality. 19. With regard to the challenge to decision No.1(d) of the government upon Rule 22 of the Rules of 1951, no argument was made by the petitioner. 20. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no illegality in the orders under challenge and therefore the writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. 21. Since the main petition, has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, dismissed.