Summary
An Assistant Teacher in Delhi resigned in March 2012 to contest a municipal election and, after losing, sought within a month to withdraw the accepted resignation. Directed by the High Court to decide the request in light of Nirmal Verma, the department rejected it solely because a chargesheet for political activity was pending; the Tribunal and the High Court found that ground unsustainable since vigilance clearance had been granted despite it. The Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeal: the employer had never challenged the parameters set by the first High Court order or relied on the plea that an accepted resignation cannot be withdrawn, and Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 itself contemplates withdrawal after a resignation becomes effective.
Issues
- Whether the rejection of a government servant's request to withdraw her accepted resignation, on the sole ground that a memorandum of charges was pending, could be sustained where the employer had accepted the parameters laid down by the High Court for deciding the request and never raised the plea that an accepted resignation cannot be withdrawn.
- Whether Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 bars withdrawal of a resignation once it has been accepted and acted upon.
Provisions considered
- Rule 26(4), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Permits the appointing authority to allow withdrawal of a resignation in the public interest where it was tendered for compelling reasons not reflecting on integrity or conduct, there is a material change of circumstances, the intervening conduct was proper, the absence does not exceed ninety days and a post is available; sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) contemplate withdrawal after the resignation becomes effective, so the Rule contains no absolute bar on withdrawal after acceptance. (¶¶ 10, 15)
- Rule 3, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964The memorandum of charges alleged attendance at a political party meeting and canvassing during elections in breach of this Rule; the pendency of that chargesheet was the only ground for rejecting the withdrawal request and was held insufficient, since the employer could have declined to accept the resignation pending inquiry but instead granted vigilance clearance. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
Held
- The first High Court order directed the employer to decide the withdrawal request within the parameters of Nirmal Verma; the employer accepted that order, rejected the request only on the ground of the pending chargesheet, and never contended that an accepted resignation cannot be withdrawn or that there was no compelling reason for resigning. The respondent's right to be considered within those parameters had therefore crystallised and the authorities could not go beyond them. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The interpretation of Rule 26(4) in Manisha Sharma, that a person who resigns voluntarily to contest an election cannot claim compulsion and that an accepted and acted-upon resignation cannot be withdrawn, is accepted as a proposition of law, but additional reasoning cannot be imported into the employer's rejection order; in any event Rule 26 contains no absolute bar on permitting withdrawal after acceptance, and sub-rule (4) envisages withdrawal after the resignation becomes effective. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
- Both the Tribunal and the High Court rightly found that the issue of a memorandum of charges could not distinguish the respondent's case from Nirmal Verma, since the employer had granted vigilance clearance and accepted the resignation despite it; in the peculiar facts the judgment sustaining the Tribunal's direction to allow her to rejoin as Assistant Teacher warrants no interference. (¶¶ 7, 8, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Delhi High Court judgment dated 09.10.2019 sustaining the Central Administrative Tribunal's order permitting the respondent to withdraw her resignation and rejoin duty as Assistant Teacher affirmed; connected applications disposed of; no order as to costs.