THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. versus KAMLESH RANI BHATLA

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 23-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
v.
KAMLESH RANI BHATLA
(Civil Appeal No. 1927 of 2023)
MARCH 23, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972: r. 26(4) –
Forfeiture of service on resignation – Withdrawal of resignation –
On facts, the respondent tendered her resignation to contest election,
and the resignation was accepted – She lost the election and
thereafter, applied for withdrawal of resignation – Application was
kept pending – She then filed writ petition wherein the High Court
directed the authorities to deliberate upon and thereafter dispose
of her request qua withdrawal of her resignation taking note of the
judgment of the High Court in Nirmal Verma’s case – Respondent’s
representation was rejected by the appellant on the ground that she
was charge-sheeted for her involvement in political activities while
working – Application thereagainst by the respondent – Allowed by
the tribunal with a direction to the authorities to process the case of
the respondent for withdrawal of her resignation and allow her to
join duty as Assistant Teacher – Writ petition by the appellant –
Rejection of, by the High Court holding that no enquiry was
conducted against respondent and even vigilance clearance was
granted to her before accepting her resignation – On appeal, held:
There is no absolute bar on the employer in permitting withdrawal
of resignation even after the same is accepted – Rule 26 does not
contain any such provision – Resignation can become effective either
by stipulation of law or by acceptance thereof – In the instant case,
the first order of the High Court was a direction upon the employer
to take a decision in terms of Nirmal Verma’s case which implies
that her withdrawal plea was required to be examined within a given
parameter and since the employer never challenged the direction
laying down the scope within which they were to consider the
withdrawal plea of the respondent, the right of the respondent to be
considered within that parameter had crystallised – Authorities could
not and did not, go beyond that parameter – Authorities, in the
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 676
676
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
order of rejection, did not take the stand that once accepted, a
resignation cannot be withdrawn – Appellants also did not reason
their rejection order with the ground that there was no compelling
reason for the respondent to tender her resignation – Both the fora
opined that the respondent’s case could not be distinguished from
the ratio of the case of Nirmal Verma’s case merely on the strength
of issue of memorandum of charges against her – Resignation can
become effective only on acceptance thereof and sub-rule (4) of r.
26 lays down situations in which there can be withdrawal even after
resignation becomes effective – Respondent’s plea for withdrawal
of resignation was rejected on grounds spelt out therein – Tribunal
and the High Court found the reasoning of the appellant
unsustainable – Judgment of the High Court sustaining the tribunal’s
decision do not warrant any interference.
Nirmal Verma v. MCD and Anr. [Decision dated
18-03-2005 of Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.
3303/2003]; Directorate of Education v. Manisha
Sharma [Decision dated 28-11-2019 of Delhi High
Court in WP (C) 8494/2015]; State of Haryana and
Others v. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1997] 2 SCR 329
relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1927
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 1118 of 2019.
Ms. Madhavi Gordie Divan, ASG, Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale, VVV
Pattabhiraman, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for
the Appellants.
M. S. Saini, Jatinder Pal Singh, Ms. Reema Chawla, Advs. for
the Respondent.
THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. v. KAMLESH
RANI BHATLA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants question the legality of a judgment of a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court, which in substance sustains an order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the respondent to withdraw
her resignation and permit her to re-join duty. At the material point of
time, the respondent was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school
under the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government, who are the
appellants before

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