Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santoshkumar Singh, was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He voluntarily resigned from service, and his resignation was accepted on 07.04.2012, with his name struck off from the unit strength effective 08.04.2012. No demand for any recovery was made at that time. However, on 01.07.2014, more than two years later, the respondents issued a demand for Rs.1,12,557/- under Rule 17A of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, claiming that this amount was not recovered from him at the time of resignation. The petitioner made a representation against this demand, relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 950 of 2016 dated 08.08.2017, which had set aside a similar recovery. The representation was rejected by order dated 13.11.2017, which the petitioner challenged in the present writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the respondents could enforce recovery under Rule 17A after the resignation had been accepted without any such demand. The Court examined Rule 17A, which requires a member seeking resignation to refund a sum equal to three months' pay and allowances or the cost of training, whichever is higher. The Court noted that at the time of acceptance of resignation, no such demand was made, and the petitioner was discharged without any condition. The Court held that once the resignation is accepted unconditionally, the employer cannot subsequently invoke Rule 17A to recover amounts. The delay of over two years in raising the demand was also held to be fatal. The Court further observed that the rejection order dated 13.11.2017 did not consider the earlier decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 950 of 2016, which was directly applicable. Consequently, the Court quashed the demand and the rejection order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery on Resignation - Rule 17A of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Delay in Raising Demand - The petitioner resigned from CRPF and his resignation was accepted on 07.04.2012 without any demand for recovery. After more than two years, on 01.07.2014, a demand for Rs.1,12,557/- was raised under Rule 17A. The Court held that once resignation is accepted without any condition of recovery, the employer cannot subsequently enforce recovery under Rule 17A. The delay in raising the demand is fatal. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Representation - Rejection Without Considering Earlier Decision - The petitioner's representation against the recovery demand was rejected by order dated 13.11.2017 without considering the earlier decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 950 of 2016 dated 08.08.2017, which had set aside a similar recovery. The Court held that the rejection order is unsustainable. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents can enforce recovery of an amount of Rs.1,12,557/- against the petitioner under Rule 17A of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, after his resignation was accepted without any such demand.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The demand for recovery of Rs.1,12,557/- and the rejection order dated 13.11.2017 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Rule 17A of Central Reserve Police Force Rules
- 1955
- recovery cannot be enforced after resignation accepted without demand
- delay in raising demand fatal
- representation rejected without considering earlier decision
