Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 13-01-2020 passed by the Commandant, 52nd Battalion SSB, Araria, which rejected the petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation and reinstatement. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable Guard on 01-03-2007 and inducted into the 52nd battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal. He tendered a handwritten resignation on 16-07-2019, which was accepted on 25-07-2019 and he was relieved the same day. Thereafter, he submitted applications seeking withdrawal of resignation, relying on Office Memorandum dated 10-06-2019, which he claimed entitled him to reinstatement within 90 days. The Commandant took up a later application dated 09-10-2019 and rejected it by the impugned order. The petitioner contended that he was the only son with aged parents and three sisters, and that his resignation had been compelled by family circumstances. He relied on Clause 2 of the Office Memorandum which provides that an appointing authority may permit withdrawal of resignation in public interest on conditions including compelling reasons, no reflection on integrity or conduct, no improper conduct during the intervening period, absence not exceeding 90 days, and availability of the post. The respondents opposed the petition, filing an affidavit by the Commandant. They submitted that reinstatement after withdrawal of resignation was possible only in public interest, which was absent. They highlighted that the petitioner had submitted resignation letters on earlier occasions, including on 23-06-2016, 16-12-2017, 26-03-2018, and finally on 06-07-2019, with a reminder on 18-07-2019. The respondents further detailed the petitioner's disciplinary record: on 14-07-2015 while performing sentry duty, he fired a round from his INSAS rifle which injured his right thigh, leading to punishment of 14 days pay fine under Section 56(1)(g) of the SSB Act, 2007 by order dated 03-01-2017; during trial he unauthorizedly left the campus on 17-03-2018 and was awarded 28 days rigorous imprisonment in Force custody under Section 56(1)(a) by order dated 03-12-2016; and for false allegations against a Deputy Commandant he was awarded 21 days confinement to line under Section 56(c) by order dated 13-03-2019. The High Court examined Clause 2 of the Office Memorandum and observed that its language, 'the appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest,' conferred discretionary power and did not create an indefeasible right. The court held that withdrawal of resignation after acceptance was not an enforceable right, and that there was a catena of judgments dis-entitling an employee from withdrawing resignation after acceptance. It noted that after counselling on 19-07-2019 and an interview on 20-07-2019, the petitioner remained reluctant to continue, and that he had not performed duties between tendering resignation and acceptance. Considering the disciplinary punishments, the court concluded that reinstatement of the petitioner would not subserve any public interest and that there would be no loss to the public if reinstatement was denied. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and rule discharged. The court upheld the impugned order of the Commandant.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation and Withdrawal - Withdrawal of Accepted Resignation Is Not an Enforceable Right - Office Memorandum dated 10-06-2019, Clause 2 - The petitioner tendered resignation on 16-07-2019 which was accepted on 25-07-2019; after acceptance he sought withdrawal, but the court held that an employee has no vested right to withdraw an accepted resignation and the memorandum does not confer indefeasible right - Held that withdrawal after acceptance is not enforceable and the appointing authority has only discretionary power (Paras 12-13). B) Service Law - Public Interest in Reinstatement - Discretionary Power and Conditions for Withdrawal - Office Memorandum dated 10-06-2019, Clause 2 - The provision uses 'may permit' and requires public interest along with conditions such as compelling reasons, no reflection on integrity, proper conduct, absence not more than 90 days, and post availability - The court held that since the petitioner had a disciplinary record including pay fine, rigorous imprisonment, and confinement, no public interest would be served by his reinstatement - Held that discretion was not exercised erroneously and reinstatement denied (Paras 6, 13-14). C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Impact of Misconduct on Reinstatement - Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, Sections 56(1)(g), 56(1)(a), 56(c) - Petitioner was punished under the Act for firing a bullet injuring himself (14 days pay fine), unauthorized absence (28 days RI in Force custody), and false allegations against a senior officer (21 days confinement) - Court considered these punishments as negating public interest and upheld the rejection - Held that past disciplinary penalties are relevant to the exercise of discretion (Paras 8, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee can claim an enforceable right to withdraw resignation after its acceptance under Office Memorandum dated 10-06-2019; whether the appointing authority's discretionary power to permit withdrawal in public interest was rightly exercised; whether petitioner's past disciplinary record disentitled him to reinstatement.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No.1964 of 2020 dismissed; Rule discharged; impugned order dated 13-01-2020 upheld. The High Court held that there was no enforceable right to withdraw accepted resignation and reinstatement was not in public interest.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of resignation after acceptance is not an enforceable right
- Office Memorandum dated 10-06-2019 Clause 2 vests discretionary power in appointing authority
- permission to withdraw resignation can be granted only in public interest
- past disciplinary record negates public interest in reinstatement.
