Gauhati High Court
Dnp Limited vs Tapan Kumar Dutta on 13 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010109602025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/170/2025
DNP LIMITED
A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS
AT CENTRAL MALL, 6TH FLOOR, CHRISTIAN BASTI, G.S. ROAD, KAMRUP,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM, INDIA 781005 AND HEAD OFFICE AT ASSAM GAS
COMPANY LTD. CAMPUS, P.O. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM,
INDIA 786602
VERSUS
TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA
S/O BHUGESWAR DUTTA, R/O HUKUTA CHARIALI, GIRLS COLLEGE
ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 786002
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Khanna, Advocate.
: Ms. M. Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B.D. Konwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.
Agarwal, Advocate.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
13.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. K. Khanna, learned Advocate for the
appellant and Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
H. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.
Page No.# 2/7
2. By the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2025 passed in WP(C)
No.3101/2020, the learned Single Judge has confirmed that the
respondent had his entitlement to withdraw his resignation letter, which
he had voluntarily made before the jural relationship between the
employer and the employee had ended.
The facts are otherwise.
3. The appellant herein is a Government of Assam undertaking in
which the respondent was employed for a long time. He was served with
a charge-sheet on 15.02.2020, alleging that he was a habitual late-
comer and irregular in attending his duties. It appears that to avoid any
further action or a domestic proceeding against him, he submitted his
resignation on 15.02.2020 only.
For some reason or the other, the appellant/employer
accepted the resignation letter and provisionally released him from
service with effect from 16.02.2020. While accepting the resignation of
the respondent, the appellant also indicated that the respondent would
henceforth be barred from entering the premises/office of the appellant,
thereby clearly intimating that the relationship of employer and the
employee had ended.
However, the letter of acceptance included in it that if the
3(three) months' salary is paid by the respondent, and he returns the
assets of the employer, namely, computer, laptops, etc., the final release
order shall be issued.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Page No.# 3/7
date of release was made clear; the resignation was made effective
from 16.02.2020. No further prospective date was given in such letter of
the appellant for issuing a final release order. Thus, the intention of the
appellant was clear that the relationship of the master and the servant
had ended from 16.02.2020. The final release order was only for the
purposes of retrieval of the assets of the appellant and settlement of
accounts.
5. However, the learned Single Judge, reading into such letter of
acceptance and release as a resignation to be made effective from a
prospective date; which was uncertain and largely dependent on the
respondent of his returning the assets and settling the accounts, which, in
our estimation, is not correct. More so, when the letter of withdrawal of
resignation was submitted by the respondent after 3(three) months of the
provisional release order, making a request for rejoining on the subject
post.
6. The question before the learned Single judge was whether the
respondent was entitled to withdraw his letter of resignation, which had
earlier been accepted and his services were terminated, ending all jural
relationship between the master and the servant.
7. The law with respect to resignations has been concretized by
now.
8. Resignation in this case has been tendered voluntarily and
accepted by the competent authority. The acceptance has also been
communicated to the respondent. The process is complete with the
Page No.# 4/7
acceptance and release of the respondent from the service
responsibility, even though it looks like a provisional release order.
9. The provisional release order was not meant for fixing any
future date for ending the master-servant relationship but only for the
purposes of retrieval of the appellant's assets and for settlement/balance
of accounts.
10. A person, who tenders his resignation voluntarily, is entitled to
withdraw the same but only before the acceptance of such resignation.
In such a situation, it would be a matter of right for an
employee to ask for a reconsideration or withdrawal of his resignation.
After the acceptance of the resignation letter but before the final release
from service responsibility, an employee could withdraw if the rules permit
and the employers/authorities have not altered the position.
However, the law is absolutely certain that such entitlement of
withdrawal of resignation would not be available to an employee after
he is relieved; or when such resignations are tendered as a measure of
discipline; or for avoiding any injury and the same has been accepted in
that context, or when the rules prohibit withdrawal.
11. In the present case, it appears that the resignation was made
on the respondent having been served with the charge-sheet of
dereliction of duty. It can safely be presumed that this resignation was
meant to avoid any domestic proceeding. There could be a situation of
the respondent having been asked by his employer to resign.
Page No.# 5/7
In either of the situations, the intention has to be read
contextually.
12. The resignation letter was accepted and the release order was
also passed alongside with a clear stipulation of not ever coming to the
premises/office of the appellant again in future.
In this context, it has to be understood that the provisional
release order was not in any sense provisional, making the resignation
effective from a prospective date, which date has not been mentioned
but has been kept subject to the return of the assets of the appellant and
settling the accounts, under which condition, the final release order
would be passed.
13. In common parlance, an employee leaving an organization
and while hunting for another job is always confronted with questions on
his background. Unless such an employee is absolutely through with his
responsibilities in the erstwhile employment, a new employer would be
loath in accepting him as his employee. Thus, the provisional release
order was only made to be a reminder to the respondent that he is
required to return the appellant's assets.
This ought not to have been read by the learned Single judge
as a situation where the relationship of master and servant continued to
exist and the resignation would have become effective only on the
return of the assets and settlement of accounts.
14. One of the earliest cases in which the law of resignation was
clearly espoused was Union of India & Ors. -Vs- Gopal Chandra
Page No.# 6/7
Misra & Ors. :: (1978) 2 SCC 301, wherein it was clearly explained that
it would only be a repetition of the general principle is that in absence of
a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can
be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes
effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-
tenure of the resignor.
15. In Power Finance Corporation Limited -Vs- Pramod
Kumar Bhatia :: (1997) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court had observed
that "it is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved
of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or
resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not
come to an end." If an order of accepting the voluntary retirement is
conditional one, the conditions must be complied with. Before the
conditions are complied with, an employee can withdraw the resignation
as a voluntary resignation would not be understood to have been
effective.
16. We have already explained the reasons why we are not in
agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge who interpreted
the acceptance of resignation letter as a conditional acceptance.
Perhaps, the other parts of the acceptance letter of the appellant were
not considered in correct perspective, namely, that the relationship of
master and servant had ended; the respondent was released from
service with a particular date, which was 16.02.2020 and that he was not
permitted to come to the premises of the appellant.
Page No.# 7/7
There could be no more specific acceptance of the
resignation letter and the release of the respondent from his
responsibilities as an employee. Merely because the release was stated
to be provisional, it was not appropriate for the learned Single Judge to
have taken such acceptance to be a conditional acceptance. The final
release order would have been passed for the benefit of the respondent
only if he returned the assets of the appellant.
17. On a reading of the communications in this context, we find
that the respondent did not have a right to withdraw after 3(three)
months of such end of jural relationship between the master and the
servant.
18. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge and hold that the respondent stood discharged
from his responsibilities as an employee on his voluntary resignation,
which was accepted from a particular date, i.e. next day of the
resignation.
19. The appeal stands allowed.
20. After having said so, we leave it to the discretion of the
employer not to insist for return of 3(three) months' salary as we have
been informed that the respondent is at present jobless.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
