While Resignation From Service Is A Bilateral Act, Request For Resignation From Service Should Be Promptly Addressed By Management: Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack
The Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack division bench of Sudhi Ranjan Mishra (Judicial Member) and Pramod Kumar Das (Administrative Member) held that while resignation from service is a bilateral act and is subject to acceptance by the employer, the resignation request should be promptly addressed by the Management. The bench noted that the applicant submitted his request...
The Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack division bench of Sudhi Ranjan Mishra (Judicial Member) and Pramod Kumar Das (Administrative Member) held that while resignation from service is a bilateral act and is subject to acceptance by the employer, the resignation request should be promptly addressed by the Management.
The bench noted that the applicant submitted his request for resignation from service on 08.07.2014 but the Director of Intelligence Bureau & Joint Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau declined the same vide letter dated 04.03.2015.
Brief Facts:
The applicant, initially stationed at the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB) in Meerut in June 2010, subsequently transferred to SIB Bhubaneswar just before completing his tenure at SIB Meerut. This transfer effectively curtailed the applicant's opportunity to exercise any option for posting in accordance with the Annual General Transfer (AGT) policy. Despite applying for home state postings in AGT 2013, 2014, and 2017, the applicant's requests were consistently denied. The applicant, stating family and service-related responsibilities, applied for 10 days of Earned Leave (EL) due to his wife and newborn baby's illness. However, receiving no communication regarding his leave application by the end of the day, he submitted his resignation before the DCIO, Angul, and departed for his native place. The subsequent forwarding of his resignation letter and processing by the authorities without considering his mental and social condition raised allegations of malafide intentions.
Furthermore, the Director of Intelligence Bureau and Joint Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau requested the applicant to deposit Rs. 82,295/-, representing an overpayment of his entitlements, which he complied with and disputed the demand for an additional Rs. 12,000/-, designated as bond money. Despite his plea and subsequent representation against harassment and the pending disciplinary inquiry, the Management proceeded with the inquiry process, issuing a memorandum of charges. Despite representations urging the discontinuation of the inquiry, the Management persisted, eventually imposing a major penalty of reduction in pay grade for three years. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack (“Tribunal”) and filed an application against the Management.
In response, the Management refuted the applicant's contentions, justifying the transfer to SIB Bhubaneswar as being in public interest and dismissing claims of leave refusal as either unsubstantiated or a consequence of non-compliance with regulations.
Observations by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal noted that while resignation from service is a bilateral act, subject to acceptance by the employer, the manner in which the Management handled the applicant's resignation raised concerns. Initially, the Management processed the applicant's resignation application and requested payment of Rs. 82,295/-, which the applicant promptly fulfilled through demand drafts. Subsequently, another demand for Rs. 12,000/- for an incomplete 5th year, as per a bond executed by the applicant, was made. The Tribunal found fault with the piecemeal and phased approach adopted by the Management in demanding money to process the resignation.
Moreover, the tribunal questioned the timing of the Management's decision to decline the applicant's resignation, which occurred only on 04.03.2015, despite the resignation being submitted on 08.07.2014. This delay raised doubts about the Management's motives and procedural adherence. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the applicant's subsequent application on 19.11.2015 to withdraw his resignation was not promptly addressed by the Management, as the acceptance of withdrawal came only on 12.01.2016.
In light of these discrepancies and procedural lapses, the Tribunal held that the initial actions of the Management regarding the applicant's resignation were illegal. Consequently, all subsequent actions, including the issuance of the charge memo, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, imposition of punishment, and confirmation of the same by the appellate and revisionary authorities, were held to be unlawful. As a result, the Tribunal quashed these actions.
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh vs Union of India and Others.
Case Number: Union of India
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R K Rout
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. G R Verma