Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 450 (ALL)

Anil Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2025-03-06

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 11.09.2020 wherein the respondent no. 3 has accepted the resignation letter dated 20.12.2019. 3. The petitioner also assailed the order dated 01.08.2022 whereby the application for withdrawal of resignation dated 01.06.2022 has been rejected. 4. The resignation letter dated 20.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner details his service rendered as Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/Assistant Development Officer Cooperative. The said resignation letter records that the petitioner is unable to discharge his duties as Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/Assistant Development Officer Cooperative due to family reasons. Hence he wishes to revert to his original department i.e. Basic Education Department which was his original cadre. The letter categorically asserts that the petitioner wishes to resign from the post, the letter ends with a prayer to accept the resignation w.e.f. 27.12.2019. 5. The resignation letter of the petitioner was accepted by the impugned order 11.09.2020. 6. The acceptance of resignation of the petitioner is governed and regulated by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Resignation) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter the Resignation Rules of 2000). The relevant rule is extracted hereinunder; “4. Notice of Resignation.- (1) A Government servant may resign from his service by giving three months notice in writing. (2) The notice of resignation shall be- (i) voluntary and unconditional; (ii) addressed to the appointing authority under intimation to the authority under whom the said Government servant is working at the time of tendering resignation : Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to resign without any notice or by a shorter notice.” 7. The question arises for consideration is that whether the resignation letter and its acceptance was in consonance with the said Rules. 8. Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Resignation) Rules, 2000 contemplates that the resignation should be voluntarily and unconditional. Meaning of the word “Voluntarily” as defined in the Black Law dictionary is extracted hereinunder; “ Voluntarily , adv. Intentionally; without coercion.” 9. After the resignation was accepted on 11.09.2020, the petitioner rejoined his duties in the Basic Education Department. He has been working with the aforesaid department ever since. 10. The recitals in the said resignation letter disclose that the resignation is unconditional and voluntary. Intentionally; without coercion.” 9. After the resignation was accepted on 11.09.2020, the petitioner rejoined his duties in the Basic Education Department. He has been working with the aforesaid department ever since. 10. The recitals in the said resignation letter disclose that the resignation is unconditional and voluntary. The conduct of the petitioner as evidenced from the material before this Court and the pleadings in the record also attest the fact that the action of the petitioner was well thought out and made of his own volition and free will. Nothing has been shown from the records to establish that the resignation was involuntary or made under duress or extracted by coercion. 11. The resignation letter asserted that the resignation was to take effect prior to the statutory period of three months. The petitioner had of his own accord shortened the three month period of notice as contemplated in the proviso of Rule 4 of the Resignation Rules, 2000. The Resignation Rules, 2000 authorize an employee to curtail the said period of three months notice, and also empower the competent authority to accept the resignation in the shortened period. Hence there was no error on the part of the respondent authorities in accepting the resignation in the short period of notice. 12. The petitioner at a later point in time on 18.12.2021 submitted an application for withdrawal of the resignation. 13. The said withdrawal was made after a prolonged delay. No satisfactory cause for the said delay has been shown by the petitioner. The action of the petitioner is clearly as an afterthought. 14. Permitting the government servant to resile from a resignation letter after the same has been validly accepted will have serious consequences. Withdrawal of a resignation after its lawful acceptance will unsettle service conditions, and create a disarray in the affairs of the administration. Prospects of long drawn litigation arising out of claims and counter claims will detract the institution from the founding purposes. 15. The Resignation Rules 2000 accord finality to the acceptance of a resignation letter. The intent of the Resignation Rules, 2000 is thus to impart certainty in service conditions and ensure stability in institutional affairs. The scheme of Registration Rules, 2000 enures to the best interests of the organization and protects the rights of the employees as well. 15. The Resignation Rules 2000 accord finality to the acceptance of a resignation letter. The intent of the Resignation Rules, 2000 is thus to impart certainty in service conditions and ensure stability in institutional affairs. The scheme of Registration Rules, 2000 enures to the best interests of the organization and protects the rights of the employees as well. Allowing withdrawal of a validly accepted resignation in these facts will be contrary to express provisions of law. 16. Further the State authorities alter their position to their detriment and often create irrevocable third party rights, by acting upon the resignation of an employee as per the Resignation Rules, 2000. In this wake also the petitioner cannot be permitted to recant from his resignation letter. 17. The order dated 01.08.2022 refusing to allow the petitioner to withdraw the resignation has been passed by the competent authority and is consistent with the the Resignation Rules, 2000. There is no legal infirmity in the said order. 18. The judgment rendered by this court in Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs State of U.P. rendered in Writ -A No. - 13147 of 2023 is of no avail to the petitioner in the aforesaid case the petitioner was diagnosed with “Severe Depression Psychosis” by physicians. In these facts the learned Single Judge in Chandra Shekhar Yadav (supra) came to a conclusion that the said petitioner was not in a fit frame of mind. No such psychological issues are established from the record in the instant case. 19. No cause for interference in the impugned order is made out. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.