Resignation Not Final Until Its Acceptance Is Communicated To Employee : Supreme Court
Holding that the resignation letter was withdrawn before it was accepted, the Supreme Court allowed the reinstatement of an employee to the Railways.The Court observed that an internal communication about accepting the employee's resignation letter could not be said to be acceptance of the resignation letter. It added that unless such acceptance was communicated to the employee, the...
Holding that the resignation letter was withdrawn before it was accepted, the Supreme Court allowed the reinstatement of an employee to the Railways.
The Court observed that an internal communication about accepting the employee's resignation letter could not be said to be acceptance of the resignation letter. It added that unless such acceptance was communicated to the employee, the resignation could not be deemed to be accepted.
In this case, the appellant has served the respondent(Konkan Rail Corporation) since 1990. After putting in 23 years of service, he tendered his resignation on 05.12.2013 stating that it may be considered as coming into effect on expiry of one month. Though the resignation letter was accepted with effect from 07.04.2014,there was no official communication about such acceptance to the appellant. While so, on 26.05.2014, the appellant wrote a letter withdrawing his resignation. The respondent however relieved the employee w.e.f. 01.07.2014.
Although the respondent had accepted the resignation letter w.e.f. 07.04.2014, the appellant was called on to report on duty considering his unauthorised absence from 28.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 and in fact, the appellant reported on 19.05.2024.
It was argued by the appellant that since the resignation letter dated 05.12.2013 never attained finality, he couldn't be relieved from the job. He stated that he was consistently in touch with the employer, and even reported to duty upon being called on by the employer due to his unauthorized presence from the work which shows that the employer didn't accept the appellant's resignation.
Against relieving him from services, the appellant had moved the High Court, where the Single Judge held in the appellant's favor, however, the Division Bench reversed the same. Following this, the appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.
Affirming the Single Judge's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that since the appellant reported on duty and was consistently in touch with the employer, it cannot be said that the appellant resigned from the job. Moreover, there was no communication of the acceptance of the resignation letter to the appellant, therefore
“The respondent-employer strongly relies on the letter of acceptance of resignation dated 15.04.2014 and submits that it has come into effect from 07.04.2014. We are inclined to accept the submission made by the appellant that the letter dated 15.04.2014 is an internal communication. There is no clear evidence about the service of such letter on the appellant. Further, it is also not denied that the appellant has been continuously in touch with the respondent.”, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha observed.
The court added that “asking the appellant to report on duty for considering his unauthorised absence from 28.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 which gives an indication that there was no finality to the letter of resignation dated 05.12.2013.”
In this regard, the Court approved the Single Judge's decision where it rejected the respondent's contention that the withdrawal of the resignation letter dated 26.05.2014 cannot be accepted.
“In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner having submitted his letter dated 26.5.2014 seeking to withdraw the resignation much before the effective date, 01.07.2014 with official order on 15.07.2014 by which the petitioner was relieved of his duties, withdrawal of resignation ought to have been accepted by the respondents and continued the petitioner in service. The contrary decision by the respondents by the communication dated 23.06.2014 that withdrawal of resignation is not accepted and decision accepting the resignation stands good, is not sustainable in law….”, the Single Judge said.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be reinstated into the service.
“we direct that the appellant shall be reinstated into service within thirty days from the date of our order. He shall however be entitled to receive 50 percent of salary for the period he is said to have been relieved from service i.e. from 01.07.2014 under letter dated 23.06.2014 to the date of reinstatement, pursuant to our orders. The amount shall be calculated and paid within a period of two months from today. This period shall however be counted for pensionary benefits, if any.”, the Court said.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Madhav Atul Chitale, Adv. Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Adv. Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR Mr. Sauryapratapsinh Barhat, Adv.
Case Title: S.D. MANOHARA VERSUS KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS., C.A. No. 010567 / 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 700