http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RAJ KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/1968

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  180            1968 SCR  (3) 875  CITATOR INFO :  F          1972 SC1302  (22)  RF         1975 SC2299  (434)  E&R        1978 SC 694  (15,47,50,60)  R          1981 SC 789  (13)  RF         1987 SC2354  (11)  F          1989 SC1083  (8)

ACT: Public Servant--Letters of resignation--Resignation accepted by  appropriate  authority--Acceptance not  communicated  to public   servant--Withdrawal   of  resignation   by   public servant--Effect.

HEADNOTE: By  letters dated 21st August 1964 and 30th August 1964  the appellant,   submitted  his  resignation  from  the   Indian Administrative Service and requested the State Government in which  he  was  serving to forward his  resignation  to  the Government  of India.  On 31st October 1964, the  Government of India accepted the appellant’s resignation and  intimated acceptance  to the State Government.  On 27th November,  the appellant  wrote  letters both to the State  Government  and Government of India withdrawing his resignation but, on 29th March  1965, the State Government passed an order  accepting the  appellant’s resignation and directing the appellant  to hand over charge. The  appellant filed a writ petition in the’ High Court  for quashing  the  orders  of  the  State  Government  and   the Government of India.  The petition was dismissed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that : (1) So long as the acceptance of the resignation was not communicated to him,  the appellant could withdraw his resignation; and  (2) the. orders accepting the resignation amounted to  dismissal and   were   therefore  violative  of  Art.   311   of   the Constitution. HELD:     (1)  When  a  public servant has  invited  by  his letter  of resignation the determination of his  employment, his  service  normally stands terminated from  the  date  on which   the  letter  of  resignation  is  accepted  by   the appropriate  authority  and. in the absence of  any  law  or statutory  rule governing the conditions of his service,  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

the  contrary, it will not he open to the public servant  to withdraw  his  resignation  after  it  is  accepted  by  the appropriate  authority.  Undue delay, in intimating  to  the public  servant concerned the action taken on the letter  of resignation,  may justify an inference that the  resignation had not been accepted. [860 F-H] In  the present case, on the plain terms of the  resignation letters  of the appellant the resignation became  effective- as soon as it was accepted by the appropriate authority.  No rule has been framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution, nor is  there  any  other  rule  having  statutory  force  which requires, that for an order accepting the resignation to  be effective  it must be communicated to the person  submitting his resignation.  The circular relied upon by the appellant, according to which resignation becomes effective when it  is accepted  and the officer is relieved of his duties,  merely contains  instructions to be followed and has  no  statutory force.  The resignation was accepted within a short time  of its receipt by the Government of India and the delay of  the State   Government  in  implementing  the  order   was   not inordinate. [860 A-D, H] State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, A.T.R, 1966 S.C, 1313, held inapplicable. 858 (2)  The  orders  were neither orders of  dismissal  nor  of termination of service for any misconduct. [861 B-C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2429  of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 28, 1966 of the Punjab  High Court (Circuit Bench) Delhi in Civil  Writ  No. 170-D of 1965. S.   V.  Gupte,  Sardar  Bahadur,  Vishnu  B.  Saharya   and Yogindra Kushalan, for the appellant. R.   H, Dhebar, for respondent No. 1. A.   K. Sen and K. Baldev Mehta, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant belonged to the Indian Administrative Service  and  was  in  August 1964  posted  as  Collector  & District Magistrate, Kota.  On August 21, 1964, he addressed a  letter  to  the Chief Minister,  Rajasthan,  setting  out several  grievances  and finally  stated--"In  conclusion  I would  only  request  that  the Government  may  do  me  the kindness of accepting my resignation from the service  which I  am submitting separately as I am convinced that it  would be  impossible  to continue in such  an  atmosphere  without being  humiliated from time to time".  He also  addressed  a letter dated August 30, 1964, to the Chief Secretary to  the Government of Rajasthan submitting his resignation "from the Indian  Administrative  Service for early  acceptance",  and requested  that  it may be forwarded to  the  Government  of India  with the remarks of the State Government.  The  State Government recommended that the resignation be accepted.  On October  31,  1964,  the Government of  India  accepted  the resignation  of  the  appellant  and  requested  the   Chief Secretary  to the Government of Rajasthan "to  intimate  the date  on which the appellant was relieved of his  duties  so that a formal notification could be issued in that behalf". After some time the appellant changed his mind and by letter dated  November 27, 1964, the appellant requested the  Chief Secretary  to  the  Government  of  Rajasthan  to  recommend "acceptance  of the withdrawal" of his resignation from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Indian Administrative Service.  He also addressed a separate letter to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of  Home  Affairs, intimating that be  was  withdrawing  his resignation  from  the Indian  Administrative  Service.   On March  29, 1965, an order accepting the resignation  of  the appellant from the Indian Administrative Service was  issued and  the appellant was directed to hand over charge  to  the Additional  Collector,  Kota.  The appellant  then  moved  a petition in the High Court of Punjab at Delhi for the  issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the record of the  case and quashing the order passed by the 859 Government  of  India  accepting  the  resignation  of   the appellant, and also quashing the order dated March 29,  1965 issued  by the State of Rajasthan.  The High Court  rejected the  petition holding that the resignation became  effective on  the date on which it was accepted by the  Government  of India,  and a subsequent withdrawal of the  resignation  was ineffective,  even if acceptance of the resignation was  not intimated to the appellant. In this appeal, with certificate granted by the High  Court, counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant could, so   long   as  acceptance  of  the  resignation   was   not communicated  to him, withdraw the resignation submitted  by him.  Counsel invited our attention to a circular memorandum issued  on  May 6, 1958, under the signature of  the  Deputy Secretary  to  the  Government of India,  Ministry  of  Home Affairs, setting out the procedure to be followed in dealing with  resignation  from service.  Clauses (c) & (d)  of  the circular stated :               (c)   "The  competent authority should  decide               the   date   with  effect   from   which   the               resignation should become effective.  In cases               covered  by  (b)(i) above, the date  would  be               that   with  effect  from  which   alternative               arrangements can be made for filling the post.               Where  an  office is on leave,  the  competent               authority should decide whether he will accept               the resignation with immediate effect or  with               effect from the date following the termination               of  the  leave.  Where a period of  notice  is               prescribed  which a Government servant  should               give  when he wishes to resign  from  service,               the  competent authority may decide  to  count               the period of leave towards the notice period.               In  other cases also, it is open to  the  com-               petent   authority  to  decide   whether   the               resignation     should    become     effective               immediately   or   with   effect   from   some               prospective date..............               (d)   "A resignation becomes effective when it               is accepted and the officer is relieved of his               duties.   Where a resignation has  not  become               effective  and the officer wishes to  withdraw               it, it is open to the authority which accepted               the  resignation either to permit the  officer               to  withdraw the resignation or to refuse  the               request for such withdrawal.  Where,  however,               a   resignation  has  become  effective,   the               officer is no longer in Government service and               acceptance  of the request for  withdrawal  of               resignation  would amount to re-employing  him               in  service  after  condoning  the  period  of               break. Counsel  says  that  under the instructions  issued  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Government  of India resignation of an officer from  service becomes effective 860 after  it  is accepted and the officer is  relieved  of  his duties  and not till then.  But the circular letter  has  no statutory  force.  It is not a rule made under Art.  309  of the  Constitution.  It contains merely instructions set  out by  the Ministry of Home Affairs about the procedure  to  be followed  in  respect  of  resignation  from  service.   Our attention  has  not been invited to any  statutory  rule  or regulation relating to resignation by members of the  Indian Administrative  Service, especially as to the date on  which the resignation becomes effective. The letters writen by the appellant on August 21, 1964,  and August  30, 1964, did not indicate that the resignation  was not  to  become  effective  until  acceptance  thereof   was intimated  to  the appellant.  The  appellant  informed  the authorities  of the State of Rajasthan that his  resignation may  be forwarded for early acceptance.  On the plain  terms of  the letters, the resignation was to become effective  as soon  as  it was accepted by the appointing  authority.   No rule  has  been framed under Art. 309  of  the  Constitution which enacts that for an order accepting the resignation  to be  effective,  it  must  be  communicated  to  +,he  person submitting his resignation. Our  attention  was invited to a judgment of this  Court  in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika(1) in which it was held that  an order of dismissal passed by an authority and  kept on  its  file  without  communicating  it  to  the   officer concerned or otherwise publishing it did not take effect  as from the date on which the order was actually written out by the  said authority; such an order could only  be  effective after  it was communicated to the Officer concerned  or  was otherwise  published.   The principle of that  case  has  no application here.  Termination of employment by order passed by the Government does not become effective until the  order is intimated to the employee.  But when a public servant has invited  by his letter of resignation determination  of  his employment, his services normally stand terminated from  the date  on which the letter of resignation is accepted by  the appropriate authority, and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary,  it will  not  be  open to the public servant  to  withdraw  his resignation  after it is accepted by the appropriate  autho- rity.  Till the resignation, is accepted by the  appropriate authority  in  consonance  with  the  rules  governing   the acceptance,   the   public  servant  concerned   has   locus poenitentiae but not thereafter.  Undue delay in  intimating to  the  public servant concerned the action  taken  on  the letter   of  resignation  may  justify  an  inference   that resignation has not been accepted.  In the present case  the resignation  was accepted within a short time after  it  was received by (1)  A. T. R, 1966 S, C. R. 1313, 861 the Government of India.  Apparently the State of  Rajasthan did  not  immediately implement the order and  relieve,  the appellant of his duties, but the appellant cannot profit  by the  delay in intimating acceptance or in relieving  him  of his duties. The alternative ground raised by counsel that acceptance  of the  resignation  amounts to dismissal from  employment  and failure  to comply with the requirements of Art. 311 of  the Constitution  vitiates the order accepting  the  resignation has no force.  The order complained of did not purport to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

one  of  dismissal : the Government of  India  accepted  the resignation submitted by the appellant, they did not purport to terminate the appointment for any misconduct on the  part of the appellant, or as a measure of penalty. The  appeal fails and is dismissed.  There will be no  order as to costs. V.P.S.                       Appeal dismissed. 862