Summary
The Court held that a police constable could not withdraw her resignation after its acceptance under Rule 35A. The three-month notice requirement did not preserve a withdrawal right after valid acceptance, and the authority could give acceptance effect before notice expired. The provision for cancellation if adverse vigilance material emerged did not render acceptance incomplete. Reinstatement was reversed, with liberty to seek fresh appointment through lawful selection.
Issues
- Whether resignation could be withdrawn after acceptance but within the three-month notice period.
- Whether a provision for cancellation upon adverse vigilance information prevented completed acceptance.
Provisions considered
- Rule 35A(a)–(c), Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate ServiceThe governing rule permitted withdrawal before acceptance, prohibited it afterwards and authorized acceptance taking effect before expiry of notice. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
Held
- Rule 35A governed the constable. Its clauses expressly distinguished withdrawal before acceptance from the position after acceptance; the notice period did not require the authority to postpone acceptance until its expiry. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- Acceptance was complete on 12 June 2017 and the attempted withdrawal on 13 July was ineffective. The provision allowing cancellation if adverse vigilance or intelligence material emerged did not invalidate the completed acceptance. (¶ 9)
- The ruling did not prevent an application for fresh appointment when selection occurred, to be considered in accordance with law. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The Division Bench judgment directing reinstatement was set aside and dismissal of the writ petition affirmed. The respondent remained free to apply for fresh appointment through subsequent selection in accordance with law.