Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the resignation of a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force and his subsequent attempts to withdraw that resignation or secure re-enlistment. The respondent tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) on 17-10-1984. On 04-12-1984, the respondent applied to withdraw the resignation and alternatively prayed for re-enlistment, but both requests were rejected. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Orissa, OJC No. 543 of 1988. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition by judgment dated 30-03-1992, holding that the DIG was not the competent authority to accept the resignation and that the refusal of re-enlistment was arbitrary; the High Court directed reinstatement with one-third arrears of salary and other service benefits. The Union of India and others appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered two main issues: first, whether the DIG was competent under Section 5 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 read with Rule 11 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 to accept the resignation; and second, whether the refusal of re-enlistment under Rule 58 was arbitrary. On the first issue, the Court examined Section 5, which vests appointment of enrolled members in the Director-General but permits the Central Government by order to empower other supervisory officers. The Court held that Rule 11, framed under Section 22, itself satisfied the proviso to Section 5, as a rule made by the Central Government in exercise of rule-making power carries the same efficacy as an order. Rule 11 empowered the DIG to make appointments to the post of Inspector, and therefore the DIG was competent to accept the resignation. The High Court had erroneously treated an executive order as the only mode of conferment under the proviso; the Court found this a clear fallacy. Consequently, acceptance of the resignation on 17-10-1984 was valid and the respondent could not withdraw it on 04-12-1984. On the second issue, the Court considered Rule 58, which allows re-enlistment of a resigned member with the sanction of the DIG. The DIG had refused sanction noting unsatisfactory service record, false statements in the respondent's application, and the fact that the same prayer had been rejected twice earlier without fresh grounds. The High Court had embarked upon an independent inquiry into the correctness of those notes and found lack of due application of mind. The Supreme Court held that judicial scrutiny of such administrative discretion is limited to verifying whether the record disclosed relevant factors supporting the refusal; if such factors existed, the decision could not be termed arbitrary. Here the unsatisfactory service record and repeat rejections were relevant and not extraneous. The High Court's further inquiry was impermissible. Thus the refusal was not arbitrary. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation and Appointment - Competent Authority to Accept Resignation - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Sections 5 and 22; Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, Rules 3-A and 11 - The respondent, an enrolled Sub-Inspector, resigned and the Deputy Inspector-General accepted the resignation; he later sought withdrawal claiming lack of competence. The Court held that Rule 11 framed under Section 22 satisfied the proviso to Section 5 and empowered the Deputy Inspector-General to appoint Inspectors, thereby making him competent to accept the resignation. Held that acceptance on 17-10-1984 was valid and subsequent withdrawal on 04-12-1984 was ineffective. B) Service Law - Re-enlistment and Judicial Review - Arbitrary Exercise of Discretion - Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, Rule 58 - The respondent sought re-enlistment after resignation; the Deputy Inspector-General refused sanction citing unsatisfactory service record, false statements, and prior rejections without fresh grounds. The High Court found refusal arbitrary, but the Supreme Court held that judicial review is limited to seeing whether record disclosed relevant factors. Held that unsatisfactory service record and repeated rejections were relevant and not extraneous, so refusal was not arbitrary; the High Court's further inquiry was impermissible. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and writ petition dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Inspector-General of the Central Industrial Security Force was competent under Section 5 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 read with Rule 11 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 to accept the resignation of an enrolled member; and whether the refusal of sanction for re-enlistment under Rule 58 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 by the Deputy Inspector-General was arbitrary and liable to judicial interference.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside resulting in dismissal of respondent's writ petition; no costs.
Law Points
- A rule framed by Central Government under Section 22 of CISF Act
- 1968 satisfies the proviso to Section 5
- Rule 11 of CISF Rules
- 1969 empowers Deputy Inspector-General to appoint Inspectors and therefore accept resignations
- judicial review of refusal of re-enlistment is limited to verifying existence of relevant factors on record
- acceptance of resignation becomes irrevocable after valid acceptance.
