Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 September, 2018
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10298/2018
KULDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Singhal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 28.09.2018
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 09.6.2016, 21.12.2016,
31.3.2017 and 14.11.2017, issued by the respondents declining his request
for withdrawal of his resignation and for permitting him to join his duty.
2. A glance at the relevant facts of the case is considered necessary. On
02.6.2016, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) with the
respondent No.2/BRO after being selected in a competitive examination
conducted by the SSC. The petitioner was deputed for training at the GREF
Centre at Pune. Within four days from the date of reporting for training at
Pune, the petitioner tendered his resignation letter to the respondents on the
ground that he had been selected provisionally in the Railways. The letter
submitted by the petitioner asking that he be relieved forthwith, was
accepted by the respondents and vide letter dated 09.06.2016, the
W.P.(C) 10298/2018 Pa ge 1 of 4
respondents had relieved him from GREF Services with effect from the
same date.
3. Though the petitioner had elected to leave the respondents left for
greener pastures, it so transpired that his name did not feature in the
shortlisted candidates drawn by the Railway, in terms of the revised panel.
As a result, the petitioner was left high and dry. Feeling remorseful on being
left jobless, at the end of very same month i.e., on 30.6.2016, the petitioner
sent an email to the respondents asking for permission to rejoin his duty.
Thereafter, he submitted an application on the same lines, on 24.8.2016.
However, the respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner's request vide order
dated 02.12.2016, reiterated on 31.3.2017. Yet again, the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 25.4.2017, asking for permission to rejoin
his duty, which was also rejected by the respondents vide order dated
14.11.2017. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, the petitioner has filed
the present petition.
4. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have erred in accepting the resignation of the petitioner and no
such resignation could have been accepted within three years reckoned from
date of the appointment; that the respondents have erred in rejecting the
petitioner's request for permission to rejoin the duty because there was no
delay on his part in submitting an application for seeking withdrawal of his
resignation letter since he was relieved vide letter dated 09.6.2016 and had
submitted an application for seeking withdrawal of his resignation on
30.6.2018.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Office
Memorandum dated 04.12.2007, issued by the DoPT, Ministry of Personnel,
W.P.(C) 10298/2018 Pa ge 2 of 4
Govt. of India, on the subject of "Referring of cases for withdrawal of
resignation by the Ministry/Departments-guidelines". He submits that the
captioned Office Memorandum refers to Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 that provides "that the resignation from service or on a post
unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing
authority, entails forfeiture of past service and that the Sub-rule (4) Rule
provides the conditions under which the appointing authority may permit a
person to withdraw his resignation in public interest". It is the contention
of the learned counsel that the respondents ought to have invoked the
aforesaid Office Memorandum and permitted the petitioner to rejoin as it
empowers the appointing authority to permit a person to withdraw his
resignation in public interest.
6. On enquiring from learned counsel for the petitioner as to what public
interest would be served if the appointing authority had permitted the
petitioner to rejoin his duty, no satisfactory reply has come forth except for
submitting that the petitioner is facing a hardship.
7. We are of the view that the petitioner should have taken a calibrated
decision before tendering his resignation to the respondents on 06.06.2016,
knowing very well that his appointment with the Railways had yet to
mature. However, the petitioner had showed great haste and without an
appointment letter from the Railways, decided to tender his resignation in
less than four days from the date he had joined the respondents, in terms of
the appointment letter dated 02.6.2016. The respondents cannot be blamed
in any manner for accepting the petitioner's resignation on 09.6.2016, since
it was on his insistence that he must be relieved at the earliest to enable him
to join the Railways.
W.P.(C) 10298/2018 Pa ge 3 of 4
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any infirmity in the
impugned order that warrants interference. Accordingly, the present petition
is dismissed in limine.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
ap/na
W.P.(C) 10298/2018 Pa ge 4 of 4
