Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 36134 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2023

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242899
 
Court No. - 36
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13147 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devraj Rajvedi,Subhash Rathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi
 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby resignation tendered by the petitioner from service on 20.09.2021 has been accepted with effect from 20.09.2021.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Fulatra, Block Shankargarh, District Prayagraj vide appointment order dated 27.06.2009. Petitioner pursuant to his appointment, continued to work on his post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Surbal Chandpuria, Block Shankargarh, District Prayagraj submitted a letter to District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby he tendered resignation from service. Petitioner's resignation dated 20.09.2021 has been accepted by the appointing authority of the post of Assistant Teacher i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj vide order dated 20.10.2021, wherein it has been stated that petitioner's resignation is being accepted with effect from 20.09.2021.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that petitioner at the time of tendering resignation from service i.e. on 20.09.2021 was not in a fit mental condition and has tendered resignation in acute depression, therefore, the said resignation cannot be termed as voluntary resignation. It has further been contended that petitioner tendered resignation on 20.09.2021 and that was a time when entire world was facing accute difficulties arising out of COVID-19 pandemic. Since petitioner's cousins died in COVID-19 pandemic and his wife was seriously ill and further his father was ailing, as such, petitioner was under acute mental depression and therefore, he tendered resignation from service on 20.09.2021.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since petitioner was residing at Prayagraj whereas his family including his wife was residing in the village, therefore family could not know about petitioner's mental depression and also could not know that he has tendered resignation from service and resignation has been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj vide order dated it 20.10.2021. It has further been submitted that when petitioner in the summer vacation went to his village then family came to know that petitioner is under acute mental depression and has tendered resignation from service. Petitioner was taken to Nehru Hospital, B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur where it has been detected that petitioner was suffering from 'Severe Depression Psychosis'. Wife of the petitioner thereafter submitted several representations to District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj and Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, whereby she has requested that since petitioner has tendered resignation while he was suffering with 'Severe Depression Psychosis', therefore the resignation was not voluntary and accordingly, the order by which resignation has been accepted may be recalled and petitioner may be reinstated in service. Petitioner has also submitted representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby he has requested for recall of the order dated 20.10.2021.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this court that matter of resignation of teachers working in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2000'), wherein under Rule 4, it has been provided that a government servant may resign from his service by giving three months' notice in writing with a further condition that a notice of resignation must be voluntary and unconditional.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that since petitioner at the time of tendering resignation from service was suffering from 'Severe Depression Psychosis', therefore the notice of resignation was not voluntary and further there was no three months' notice by the petitioner for resignation, as such the resignation dated 20.09.2021 was in violation of the provisions made in Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 2000, therefore the said resignation could not have been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that the legislature has provided for three months' notice by the government servant for tendering resignation from service with a definite intention that there may be moments in the life of a government servant when he under depression may tender resignation but after recovering from that moment or on proper advice, he may withdraw the resignation during the notice period, therefore government servant can tender resignation only by giving three months' notice whereas in the present case petitioner tendered resignation without giving three months' notice, as such his resignation was not as per Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2000, therefore the order dated 20.10.2021 by which District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj has accepted resignation, cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that proviso appended to Rule 4 of the Rules of 2000 makes it open to the appointing authority to allow a government servant to resign without any notice or by a shorter notice but the said proviso will come into play when a government servant makes a request to the appointing authority that he may be allowed to resign from service without any notice or by a shorter notice whereas in the case of petitioner, no request has ever been made by him to the appointing authority to permit him to resign without notice or by a shorter notice, therefore resignation submitted by the petitioner on 20.09.2021 without giving three months' notice was no resignation in the eyes of law, accordingly could not have been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj and therefore, the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby resignation has been accepted, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed upon before this court that the time when petitioner submitted resignation was really a very hard time for entire world as COVID-19 pandemic was on its peak and there were innumerable cases of people suffering with mental disorder, therefore the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj ought to have dealt with the resignation tendered by the petitioner keeping in view the practical difficulties being faced by the society at large but he has accepted the resignation tendered by the petitioner from service in haste i.e. within one month from the date of tendering of resignation.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1083, wherein it has been held that if resignation has been tendered without giving notice stipulated under the Rules, the said resignation is not a valid resignation.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has concluded his arguments by submitting that resignation tendered by the petitioner was not as per provisions of Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2000, therefore it could not have been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj and further, resignation was tendered by the petitioner under acute depression, as such the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has argued that proviso appended to Rule 4 of the Rules of 2000 permits the appointing authority to allow a government servant to resign without any notice or by a shorter notice and therefore, notice provided under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 in the matter of petitioner has been waived of by the appointing authority and thereby petitioner's resignation tendered on 20.9.2021 has been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj vide order dated 20.10.2021.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has further argued that so far as the claim of the petitioner that he was suffering with 'Severe Depression Psychosis' is concerned, there are no documents of his treatment by the doctors during the period when he tendered resignation. All the medical prescriptions annexed in the writ petition are of June, 2022 and onwards whereas petitioner tendered resignation on 20.09.2021, therefore petitioner's claim that his resignation was not voluntary and was tendered due to mental depression cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that it is well settled proposition of law that resignation once accepted by the appointing authority cannot be withdrawn for any reason whatsoever and, therefore, once resignation tendered by the petitioner has been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj vide his order dated 20.10.2021, petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw his resignation.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner being absolutely misconceived, is liable to be dismissed.

17. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that petitioner has submitted resignation on 20.09.2021 and at that point of time, entire world was facing acute difficulties due to Covid-19 pandemic and large number of people also developed disorder like mental depression. I further find that there are Doctor's prescriptions annexed with the writ petition which show that petitioner was suffering from 'Severe Depression Psychosis', therefore, it cannot be ruled out that at the time of tendering resignation, petitioner was not suffering with 'Severe Depression Psychosis'.

18. It has not been disputed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that matter of resignation of teachers working in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board are governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Resignation) Rules, 2000. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 this fact has not been denied that the Rules of 2000 are applicable in the case of petitioner.

19. For arriving at a correct conclusion, it is necessary to have a look over the provisions made in Rule 4 of the Rules of 2000. Rule 4 of Rules of 2000 is reproduced as under:

"4. Notice of Resignation.- (1) A Government servant may resign from his service by giving three months notice in writing.

(2) The notice of resignation shall be-

(i) voluntary and unconditional;

(ii) addressed to the appointing authority under intimation to the authority under whom the said Government servant is working at the time of tendering resignation :

Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to resign without any notice or by a shorter notice."

20. This court finds that Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 provides that a government servant may resign from service by giving three months' notice in writing and proviso appended to Rule 4 provides that it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a government servant to resign without any notice or by a shorter notice. A plain reading of Rule 4(1) and proviso appended to Rule 4 makes it crystal clear that a government servant can tender resignation from service only by giving three months notice but if he wants to resign without notice or by a shorter notice, then permission of the appointing authority is needed. Petitioner has not tendered resignation by giving three months' notice and he has also not requested the appointing authority to allow him to resign without notice or by a shorter notice, therefore, the resignation tendered by the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rule 4(1), as such resignation could not have been accepted by the appointing authority. This court further finds that Rule 4(2)(1) of the Rules of 2000 categorically provides that notice of resignation should be voluntary and unconditional whereas in the present case it is apparent that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was not voluntary as not only he but the entire world was facing acute difficulties due to Covid-19 pandemic and there were number of people who developed mental disorder. There are prescriptions of the Doctor on record of the writ petition whereby it has been diagnosed that petitioner was suffering from 'Severe Depression Psychosis', therefore, this probability cannot be rule out that at the time of tendering resignation, petitioner was not in a fit frame of mind.

21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1083, wherein similar rule regarding resignation from service has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been held that if resignation has been accepted prior to expiry of the notice period, the said acceptance cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are extracted as under:-

"4. The bank has preferred this appeal. Dr. Anand Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant-bank, submitted that regulation 20(2) provided for a notice to the employer only in order to protect the employer's interests and to enable the employer, in case it decided to accept the resignation, to make other arrangements in place of the resigning employee. He submitted that, this being a provision for the benefit of the employer, its requirements could be waived by the employer, if it so desired, unilaterally- The proviso to clause (2) of the regulation indeed makes it clear that it is open to the bank to waive the requirement of notice or to reduce the period of the notice to less than three months. He, therefore, submitted that, when the respondent sent in his resignation on 21st January, 1986, it was not incumbent on the bank to wait till 30th June, 1986 when the notice period would expire. It was competent for the bank to waive any notice at all and to accept the resignation with immediate effect or with effect from such other date as the bank may consider appropriate. It was further contended by learned counsel that, once the resignation letter of the respondent had been accepted by the bank and given effect to, to there was no further possibility of the respondent seeking to withdraw the resignation letter as he has purported to do in this case. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the bank's letter dated 7th February, 1986 was quite valid and effective and that the respondent's writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

5. We have given careful thought to this contention of the learned counsel and we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in the conclusion it reached. Clause (2) of regulation 20 makes it incumbent on an officer of the bank, before resigning, to serve a notice in writing of such proposed resignation and the clause also makes it clear that the resignation will not be effective otherwise than on the expiry of three months from the service of such notice. There are two ways of interpreting this clause. One is that the resignation of an employee from service being a voluntary act on the part of an employee, he is entitled to choose the date with effect from which his resignation would be effective and give a notice to the employer accordingly. The only restriction is that the proposed date should not be less than three months from the date on which the notice is given of the proposed resignation. On this interpretation, the letter dated 21st January, 1986 sent by the employee fully complied with the terms of this clause. Though the letter was written in January, 1986 the employee gave more than three clear months' notice and stated that he wished to resign with effect from 30th of June, 1986 and so the resignation would have become effective only on that date. The other interpretation is that, when an employee gives a notice of resignation, it becomes effective on the expiry of three months from the date thereof. On this interpretation, the respondent's resignation would have taken effect on or about 21.4.1986 even though he had mentioned a later date. In either view of the matter, the respondent's resignation did not become effective till 21.4.1986 or 30.6.1986. It would have normally automatically taken effect on either of those dates as there is no provision for any acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer, as is to be found in other rules, such as the Government Services Conduct Rules.

6. Much reliance was placed on the terms of the proviso to clause (2) of regulation 20 to justify the action of the bank in terminating the respondent's services earlier but we do not think that the proviso can be interpreted in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the bank. The resignation letter of the officer has to give at least three months' advance notice under the main part of the clause. What the proviso contemplates is that in a case where the employee desires that his resignation should be effective even before the expiry, of the period of three months or without notice being given by him, the bank may consider such a request and waive the period or requirement of notice if it considers it fit to do so. That question does not arise in the present case because the employee had not requested the bank to reduce the period of notice or to waive the requirement of notice. Dr. Anand Prakash seeks to interpret the proviso as empowering the bank, even without any request on the part of the employee, to reduce the period or waive the requirement of notice. In other words, he says the bank has power to accept the resignation with immediate effect even though the notice is only of a proposed future resignation. We do not think this contention can be accepted. As we have al ready mentioned, resignation is a voluntary act of an employee. He may choose to resign with immediate effect or with a notice of less than three months if the bank agrees to the same. He may also resign at a future date on the expiry or beyond the period, of three months but for this no further consent of the bank is necessary. The acceptance of the argument of Dr. Ananad Prakash would mean that, even though an employee might express a desire to resign from a future date, the resignation can be accepted, even without his wishes, from an earlier date. This would not be the acceptance of a resignation in the terms in which it is offered. It amounts really to forcing a date of termination on the employee other than the one he is entitled to choose under the regulations. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the termination of service under clause (2) becomes effective at the instance of the employee and the services of the employee cannot be terminated by the employer under this clause.

7. Dr. Anand Prakash emphasises that as clause (2) and its proviso are intended only to safeguard the bank's interests they should be interpreted on the lines suggested by him. We are of the opinion that clause (2) of the regulation and its proviso are intended not only for the protection of the bank but also for the benefit of the employee. It is common knowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers in his decision and even in a case where he has taken a firm decision to resign, he may not be ready to go out immediately. In most cases he would need a period of adjustment and hence like to defer the actual date of relief from duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to have time to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the resigning employee. Clause (2) is carefully worded keeping both these requirements in mind. It gives the employee a period of adjustment and rethinking. It also enables the bank to have some time to arrange its affairs, with the liberty, in an appropriate case, to accept the resignation of an employee even without the requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under the terms of the regulation. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that in the present case the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on or about 21st April, 1986 or on 30th June, 1986 and that the bank could not have "accepted" that resignation on any earlier date. The letter dated 7th February, 1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction."

22. The Legislature has framed Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 with definite intention as there are times when a government servant in spur of moment may tender resignation but later on he may realize his mistake or he is given proper advice and thereafter he may withdraw his resignation, therefore, three months' notice period has been provided in Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 whereas in the present case, petitioner's resignation was not as per Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 and the said resignation has been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj within a month vide order dated 21.10.2023, therefore, the order dated 21/10/2023 cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20.10.2021 is quashed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary School and further to pay him salary as and when it becomes due.

Order Date :- 21.12.2023

Salim/A.Mandhani