Resignation Rejected Due To Incomplete Formalities; Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Employer's Appeal To Enforce It; Holds Incomplete Resignation Cannot Be Acted Upon

Background

Shailendra Kumar Khamparia, a Deputy Manager with the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, tendered his resignation via email on March 26, 2016, citing personal reasons. The resignation was initially rejected by the corporation for being incomplete—lacking a specified date and failing to meet the condition of depositing three months' salary. Nevertheless, the corporation later accepted his resignation in September 2016. Khamparia, who had not fulfilled the required conditions, sought to withdraw his resignation in October 2016, but the corporation denied his request.

Arguments

The appellants argued that once a resignation is accepted, the employee has no right to withdraw it, even if acceptance is not communicated. They further asserted that Khamparia's resignation became effective despite the incomplete formalities and that the corporation was not responsible for the failure to deposit three months' salary. However, Khamparia's counsel contended that the corporation had rejected his resignation initially due to non-compliance, and the subsequent acceptance was invalid because he had not fulfilled the requisite conditions, such as providing a specific date and paying the required salary. The refusal to allow him to withdraw his resignation was, therefore, unjust.

Reasoning

Firstly, the court emphasized that a resignation must comply with all prescribed conditions before it can be validly accepted. In this case, Khamparia's resignation was initially rejected because it lacked a specific date and the required deposit of three months' salary. Although the resignation was accepted later, these conditions remained unmet, making the acceptance procedurally defective. The court further noted that once the resignation was rejected for non-compliance, the burden shifted to the corporation to ensure that all conditions were met before proceeding with acceptance. Since Khamparia did not submit a revised resignation fulfilling these conditions, the resignation should not have been accepted at all.

Additionally, the court highlighted that the corporation had transferred Khamparia and assigned him various responsibilities after receiving the incomplete resignation, further indicating that his resignation was not effectively accepted. By continuing to engage him, the corporation's actions contradicted its acceptance of the resignation. Moreover, the court considered Khamparia's multiple requests to withdraw his resignation and noted that the corporation did not act on them, which was improper given that the resignation had not taken effect due to the unfulfilled conditions. The court cited Rakesh Kumar Bhartiya v. Union of India to support the principle that an incomplete resignation cannot be acted upon and emphasized that the corporation's attempt to enforce the resignation was legally impermissible. Thus, the court held that the resignation was invalid due to procedural lapses, and Khamparia was entitled to withdraw it. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's ruling in favor of the employee.

Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:40294-DB

Decided on: 15-10-2024

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anish Tiwari, Mr. Atul Kesharwani, and Mr. Shubham Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe

Counsel for the State: Mr. S.S. Baghel

Click Here To Read/Download The Order