UNION OF INDIA versus SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA MISRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 15-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
12 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA MISRA AND ORS. 
February 15, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA, A. C. GUPTA, N. L. UNTWALIA, JASWANT SINGH 
AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
(~011stitution of India, Art. 217(1) proviso (a) "resign his office", interpreta-
tion-Iligh Court Judge's resignation letter intin1ati11g to have effect from a 
future date, whether receipt by President, 
1nakes resignation fait accompli-
Revocation of resignation prior to intimated date 
of effect, 
validity of-
Doctrine of public policy, applicability to iudicial decisions. 
The second respondent (appellant in CA 2655/77) Shri Salish 
Chandra 
\vrote to the President of India, on May 7, 1977, intimating his resignation 
from the office of Judge of the Allahabad High Collrt, with effect from August 
1, 1977. 
On July 15, 1977, he again wrote to the President, 
revoking his 
earlier communication, and commenced deciding matters in Court from July 
16, 1977. 
On August 1, 1977 the first respondent Shri Misra, an advocate· of 
the High Court. filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contend-
ing that the resignation of Shri Satish Chandra, having been duly communicat-
ed to the President of India, in accordance with Article 217(,1) Proviso (a) 
of the Constitution, was final and irrevocable, and that the continuance of res-
pondent No. 2 as a High Court Judge thereafter, was an usurpation of public 
office. 
The High Court allowed the petition holding that Shri Satish Chandra 
was not competent to revoke his resignation letter. 
Allowing the appeal by certificate, 
HELD: 
Per R. S. Sarkaria on behalf of (A. C. Gupta, N. L. Untwalia, Ja.nvant 
SinRh, JJ and himself). 
1. Resigning office necessarily involves relinquashment of the office which 
implies cessation or termination of, or cutting asunder from the 
office. 
A 
complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the link of the 
resigner with his office and termina.tes its tenure. In the context of Art. 217(1) 
this assumes the character of a decisive test, because the expression "res;gn his 
office'' occurs in a proviso which excepts or qualifies the substantive clause fixing 
the office tenure of a judge upto the age of 62 years. 
[21 E-F) 
2. Jn the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, an intimation 
in writing sent to the appropriate authority by an incumbent, of his intention 
or proposal to resign his office/post from a future specified date, can be with-
drawn by him at any time before it becomes effective i.e., before it effects 
termination of the tenure of the office/post, or employment. 
Thi.<; general rule 
equally applies to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. 
In the 
case of a Government servant, normally, the tender of resignation becomes 
effective and his service. terminated, when it is accepted by the appropriate autho-
rity. 
In the case of a High Court Judge·, who is a constitutiona1 fun~tionary 
having under Art. 217(1), Proviso (a). a unilateral right or privilege to resign, 
his resignation becomes effective on the date· from which he, of his own volition 
chooses to quit office. 
[27 E-G] 
· 
Jai Ram v. Union of India, A.J.R. 1954, SC 584 and Raj Kumar "· Union 
of India. [19681 3 S.C.R. 857 followed. 
.. 
M. Kunjukrishnan Nadar v. Hon'ble Speaker, Kerala Le7islative Assembly, 
A.I.~. 1064 Kerala 194: Y. K. Ma·thur v. 
The 
Mrtnicipa 
Corporation of 
Deflu. A.J.R. 1974 Delhi 58, Sankar Datt Shrtkla v .. President, Municipal Board 
Auraiya and Anr., A.J.R. 1956 All. 70 Bahorilal Paliwal 
v. 
Dist. Magistrat~ 
' 
-
-
UNION v. G. c. MISRA (Sarkaria, J.) 
13 
Bulandshahr A.l.R. 1956 All. (511) F.B. : 1.L.R. (1956) 2 All. 
593-F.B.. 
A 
Bhairon Singh Vislnvakarma v. Civil 
Surgeon 
Narsifnhapur, 
1971 
Labour 
Industrial Cases 127 M.P. approved. 
Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichal v. The Right Rev. John Fielder, Lord Bishop 
oj Oxford, 14 A.C. 259, distinguished. 
' 
3. A High Court Judge's letter addressed to the President intimating or noti-
fying the writer's intention to resign his office as Judge, on a future date, does 
noc and cannot forthwith sever the· writer from the office of the Judge, or termi-
nate bis tenure. Such a 'prospective' resignation does not, before the indicated 
future date is reached, become a complete and operative act of resigning his 
office by the Judge within the contemplation of Proviso (a) to Article 217(1). 
[22H, 23Al 
4, Public policy can be a very unsafe,

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