'Resignation During Pendency Of Inquiry Or Investigation Is Generally Not Accepted', Delhi High Court

Background

The Petitioner who occupied the post of AC in the CRPF applied for leave on 30.01.2015 and the same was granted to him by the respondents with effect from 02.02.2015 to 13.03.2015. On 09.03.2015, the Petitioner informed the Respondents that he suffered from back pain and was advised complete rest by doctors, hence seeking an additional four weeks of leave. While informing the Respondents through a Letter, he also produced a Medical Certificate. On 31.03.2015, the Petitioner sent another Letter to the Respondents specifying his medical condition which rendered him unable to resume duties. Therefore, he requested for additional four weeks so that his health could improve rendering him fit to join duties again.

In response to the Letters dated 09.03.2015 and 31.03.2015, the Respondents directed the Petitioner to visit the nearest CRPF hospital for treatment. Following this, the Petitioner sent another Letter dated 27.04.2015 to inform the Respondents that his constant back pain did not allow him to resume duties.

The Respondents once again asked the Petitioner to seek treatment from a CRPF hospital nearby and the Petitioner claimed that the nearest CRPF hospital was 300 kms away from his place of residence. Subsequently, the Petitioner sent another Letter on 22.05.2015 seeking extension of his rejoining date owing to being unwell. The Respondents issued an Office Order dated 28.05.2015 initiating a preliminary inquiry against the Petitioner for overstaying his leave from 14.03.2015 till 28.05.2015. The inquiry was to be conducted by the Deputy Commandant and the Respondents once again on 28.05.2015 directed the Petitioner to visit the nearest CRPF hospital for treatment.

On 11.10.2015, issuing a Show-Cause Notice of the preliminary inquiry to the Petitioner, an explanation in relation to the unauthorized absence was sought from the Petitioners by the Respondents. Replying to the same, the Petitioner sought permission to rejoin his duties on being fit for duties. He also informed the Respondents that he would provide all the medical record to justify his absence from work.

Owing to continuous back pain, the Petitioner sent another Letter requesting to be allowed to join after four weeks. Later, on realizing that his condition was not improving, the Petitioner sent a letter dated 14.11.2015 to the respondents, conveying that due to personal reasons, he would not be able to rejoin his duties.

As the Respondents asked the Petitioner to resign properly, he submitted a formal resignation on 04.11.2016. While the resignation was being processed, a Chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner and he was served the same on 24.05.2018. Submitting a reply, the Petitioner requested the Respondents to accept his resignation and withdraw the inquiry proceedings.

The Inquiry Officer filed the Inquiry Report suggesting that the charges of unauthorised absence from duty stood proved against the Petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the High Court withdrawing the Petition later owing to the dismissal Order dated 24.05.2021 by the respondents against the petitioner. The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to raise all the pleas from the said petition in the appropriate proceedings leading to another Petition before the High Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

• The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.2 had approved the recommendation that conducting disciplinary proceedings would not be advisable and the Petitioner's resignation would be accepted, however, later a Chargesheet was issued against the Petitioner which was against the established principle of law.
• Citing an Order dated 21.03.2017, the Counsel stated that the Petitioner's resignation was sent for approval to the Competent Authority for acceptance.
• Further, it was stated that the Petitioner was entitled to resign from his duties and the Respondents had no choice but to accept the resignation, especially considering the circumstances of the Petitioner.
• The Counsel submitted that even though the Respondents did not reject the resignation of the Petitioner, departmental inquiry was initiated against him while also ignoring that he was sanctioned leave for 40 days by the Respondents.
• Stating that the Respondents hastily concluded the proceedings, the Counsel stated that it caused prejudice to the legal rights of the Petitioner.
• Further, terming the inquiry proceedings and dismissal order as illegal and void ab initio, the Counsel stated that the Respondents did not suspend the petitioner from service deliberately, so that subsistence allowance would not have to be paid to him.
• It was stated that although the resignation of the Petitioner was pending before the Competent Authority, the Inquiry Officer kept issuing notices to the petitioner.
• The Counsel asserted that the Petitioner was entitled to his legitimate dues, including gratuity, provident fund, and other benefits because he had served 12 years and had to resign due to serious illness.

Contentions of the Respondents:

• The Counsel for the Respondent stated that the Petitioner was supposed to report to duties on 14.03.2015 after being sanctioned a leave for 40 days. As per the preliminary inquiry, he did not do so, even after he was declared fit for duty on 14.11.2015 by the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Mathura (UP).
• It was stated that the instead of joining the duty, the Petitioner resigned citing domestic reasons. Meanwhile, by a letter dated 06.06.2016, the SDG, J&K zone, submitted a preliminary Inquiry Report suggesting the process of resignation of the petitioner.
• While the proposal was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking approval of the Competent Authority for the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel and Training. Consequently, the proposal was returned, directing to follow the instructions in dealing with a Government servant who remained absent from duty unauthorizedly.
• The Counsel submitted that accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide Presidential Memorandum No. D.IX-22/2016 CRC dated 24.05.2018.
• Later, while the charges were proved against the Petitioner and after the Inquiry Officer's report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and served upon the petitioner, the Petitioner did not make any representation against the report leading in the imposition of the penalty of “dismissal from service.

Findings of the Court:

The Court observed that several reasonable opportunities were extended to the Petitioner to participate in the Departmental Inquiry proceedings which he did not avail and accordingly the inquiry was conducted ex-parte, in accordance with Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Moreover, while three witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer, the Petitioner did not produce any evidence in his defence. Further on receiving the Inquiry Report, the Petitioner was supposed to submit a reply to the same within 15 days, however, he failed to do so.

Additionally, the Court observed that in awarding the penalty to the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority consulted the UPSC as per the procedure laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the UPSC advised that the Petitioner should be dismissed from service while also disqualifying him for future employment under the Government. Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit any reply even after receiving the advice of the UPSC in awarding the said penalty to the Petitioner.

Observing that the Court ordinarily does not interfere with the findings in disciplinary proceedings or the stringency of the punishment, the Bench opined that it could only determine whether the punishment was disproportionate. However, it was observed that in the instant case, the Petitioner had not only failed to point out any procedural lapse in the preliminary inquiry or in the consequential disciplinary proceedings conducted against him but had also not participated in the proceedings despite being given ample opportunity. No medical documents were provided by him to justify his absence form duty and the statement that there was no CRPF hospital was construed as a fabricated excuse by the Court. The Court further held that even after the Petitioner was declared fit by the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Mathura, he did not report to duty and instead chose to tender a resignation on account of some domestic issues.

The Court perused the Office Memorandum and held that resignation tendered while the inquiry was pending could generally not be accepted regardless of whether the Petitioner was suspended or not.

Making these observations, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Case Title: SATYAVIR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Ranvir Singh, CGSPC

Click Here To Download Order/Judgement