DR. PRABHA ATRI versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 11-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. PRABHA ATRI 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Resignation-Charge of negligence against Doctor-Suspended pending C 
domestic enquiry-Lei/er expressing her intention to resign-Treated as 
resignation-Held, the lei/er would not amount to resignation since it did not 
convey any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish office accompanied 
by any act of relinquishment. 
Words and Phrases-'Resignation'-Meaning of 
Appellant-doctor was charged for negligence and for acting against 
medical ethics. She was placed under suspension pending institution of 
domestic enquiry. She wrote a letter expressing her intention to resign if 
D 
her claims in respect of the alleged lapse are not viewed favourably. E 
Competent authority treated her letter as letter of resignation and accepted 
the resignation. In response to the letter withdrawing the domestic enquiry 
in view of her resignation appellant stated that she never resigned but had 
shown only intention to resign and she requested for rectifying the 
mistaken understanding of her earlier letter. The authority declined to 
reconsider the matter. She filed writ petition before High Court which was F 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court the question for consideration was whether 
the letter by the appellant could be construed to mean or would amount 
to a letter of resignation or merely an expression of her intention to resign. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The letter by the appellant cannot be construed to convey 
any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish her office accompanied 
by any act of relinquishment. (33-CJ 
27 
G 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. To constitute a 'resignation', it must be unconditional anri with 
an intention to operate as such. At best it may amount to a threatened 
offer more on account of exasperation, to resign on account of a feeling 
of frustration born out of an idea that she was being harassed 
unnecessarily but not, at any rate, amounting to a resignation, actual and 
B simple. The appellant had put in about two decades of service in the 
Hospital, that she was placed under suspension and exposed to disciplinary 
proceedings and proposed domestic enquiry and she had certain benefits 
flowing to her benefit, if she resigns but yet the letter does not seek for 
any of those things to be settled or the disciplinary proceedings being 
scrapped a sequel to her so-called resignation. The words 'with immediate 
C effect' in the said letter could not be given undue importance dehors the 
context, tenor of language used and the purport as well as the remaining 
portion of the letter indicating the circumstances in which it was written. 
(33-C, D, E( 
1.3. That the management of the Hospital took up such action 
D forthwith, as a result of acceptance of the resignation is not of niuch 
significance in ascertaining the true or real intention of the letter written 
by the appellant. Consequently, it appears to be reasonable to view that 
the respondents have seized an opportunity to get rid of the appellant the 
moment they got the letter without due or proper consideration of the 
E matter in a right perspective or understanding of the contents thereof. The 
High Court also seems to have completely lost sight of these vital aspects 
in rejecting the Writ Petition. (33-F; G) 
1.4. However the respondent-Hospital authorities shall be at liberty 
to pursue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her in accordance 
F with law. (34-AI 
G 
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors., etc. 
(19841 2 sec 141, relied on. 
Moti Ram v. Param Devi and Anr., (1993) 2 SCC 725, referred to. 
Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) Vol. 37 476; Black's law 
Dictionary-6th Edition and Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 77, page 311-
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 8317-
H 83I8 or2002. 
PRABHAATRI v. STATE[DORAISWAMYRAJU,J.] 
29 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3 .2002 of the Allahabad High A 
Court in C.M.R. Appln. No. 6025 of 2002. 
Rakesh Dwivedi and Ms. Niranjana Singh, for the Appellant. 
Ranjit Kumar, Arjun Bhandari, Rakesh Singh and Arun K. Sinha, 
for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJU, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant, who was working as Anaesthetist in Kamla Nehru C 
Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, was issued with a Memo dated 5.1.1999, 
bri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.