Vivek Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Represented By Ministry ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5853 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vivek Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Represented By Ministry ... on 16 September, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                           2025:JHHC:28414

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P.(S) No. 3136 of 2015
                                 .........

Vivek Kumar Singh, son of Late Ved.K. Singh resident of 122/320, Fazal Ganj (Sarojani nagar), P.O. R.K. Nagar, P.S. Fazalganj, District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208012. ..... Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India represented by Ministry of Home Affairs, through Secretary having its office at North Block Central Secretariat P.O. & P.S. Central Secretariat, District New Delhi 110001.

2. Inspector General of Police Western Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, IIIrd Floor, CGO, Complex, Belapur, P.O. & P.S. Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614;

3. DIG Range CRPF, Talegaon (Pune), Maharashtra- 410507, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Talegaon, District Talegaon, Pune (Maharastra).

4. Commandant-158 BN CRPF, Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. & District Lohardaga, Jharkhand-835302.

..... Respondents .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel .........

C.A.V. ON 27/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 16 /09/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioner for the following reliefs:-

a) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the decision whereby the request of the petitioner to withdraw his resignation has been rejected as communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 16.04.2015.

b) Upon quashing of the aforesaid decision, a further writ, order, direction be issued commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to withdraw his resignation and consequently resume his duties.

2025:JHHC:28414

c) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made

are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of

Constable/General Duty in Central Reserve Police Force on

01.06.2004. The petitioner's family comprised of his father,

mother, wife, elder brother (and his family) and a younger

sister. The earning members of the family were his father,

elder brother and the petitioner. The father of the petitioner

met with a fatal road accident which resulted in his death

on 23.11.2013.

Thereafter, the elder brother of the petitioner who was

serving in the Indian Army insisted that the petitioner

should tender his resignation and live with his family in

Kanpur so that he can take care of his ailing mother as well

as younger sister who was diagnosed to be suffering from

Bone Tuberculosis.

The elder brother of the petitioner had assured that he

would take care of the finances for the entire family and

represented that his salary was sufficient to meet all the

expenses of his ailing mother and sister as also the

petitioner and his wife.

4. Based on the aforesaid factual scenario, the petitioner

has made an application dated 10.06.2014 for tendering

2025:JHHC:28414

his resignation. The petitioner in his application had stated

that the compelling reason for resignation was personal

family problems. The resignation of the petitioner was

accepted with effect from 30.06.2014 by an Office Order

dated 29.06.2014 issued by the Commandant, Central

Reserve Police Force, Lohardaga.

Unfortunately, the elder brother of the petitioner

resiled from his promise, assurance, commitments and

refuse to take care of the finances. The wife of the

petitioner's elder brother was also not happy with the

arrangement which was purposed by the elder brother of

the petitioner; as a result of which the disputes and

differences arose and as a consequence thereof, the elder

brother of the petitioner has separated himself from the

other members of the family. Hence, due to such family

problems, the petitioner was not in a position to support

his family even with basic necessity.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner had made an application

dated 25.08.2014 to the Inspector General, Western Sector,

Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi to permit the

Petitioner to withdraw his resignation. In the said

application the petitioner had indicated the reasons

mentioned before for permitting him to withdraw his

resignation.

2025:JHHC:28414

The Petitioner again wrote a letter dated 10.10.2014

before the Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force on

10.10.2014 for permitting the petitioner to withdraw his

resignation. In the said application the petitioner has

mentioned the compelling reason to withdraw his

resignation as the petitioner had to support his mother and

sister who were ailing. Since, no decision on the petitioner's

request to permit him to withdraw his resignation was

communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner on

06.04.2015 and 17.04.2015 had made an application

before the Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force,

Western Sector, Navi Mumbai for considering his case

having regard to the hardship faced by the petitioner as

also the fact that the petitioner had unblemished career of

more than 10 years.

6. Thereafter, by an order dated 16.04.2015 passed by

the Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, Lohardaga,

the petitioner was informed that his request for withdrawal

of his resignation was rejected by the Deputy Inspector

General, Central Reserve Police Force, Pune Range vide his

letter dated 13.04.2015; wherein it was stated as under:-

"I found no merit in the request of the individual for

withdrawal of resignation. Hence, his request should be

rejected."

The letter dated 13.04.2015 has been brought on

2025:JHHC:28414

record by the respondents' authorities and in the said letter

the same reason has been assigned for rejection. The order

dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Commandant, Central

Reserve Police Force, Lohardaga is under challenge in the

instant writ petition.

7. The Union of India has filed their Counter Affidavit

and has stated the following at paragraph-8 to 12 to

supplement the reasons mentioned in the impugned order:-

"8. That it is stated that later on, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25/08/2014 addressed to the IGP Western Sector, CRPF, New Mumbai under intimation to the DIGP, Range Pune, CRPF (Maharashtra) and the Commandant 158 Battalion, CRPF requesting for reinstatement into service due to some domestic reasons. The copy of the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the DIGP, Range Pune, CRPF by the office of IGP Western Sector, CRPF with the direction to examine the case as per rules and to take necessary action. In turn, the DIGP, Range Pune, CRPF forwarded copy of said application to Commandant 158 Battalion, CRPF vide their office letter No. R.XIII-1/2014-EC-1 dated 17/09/2014 (which physically received on 07/10/2014) for further course of action as per rules.

9. That it is stated the matter has been examined in depth by Commandant 158 Battalion, CRPF in office and clarification regarding withdrawal of resignation has been asked from DIGP Pune Range, CRPF vide signal No. D.V-1/2014-158-EC.II dated 22/10/2015 on the issue that as per Rule 26 (4) (i) (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972, whether H.O.O. cane accept withdrawal of his resignation or otherwise.

10. That it is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner submitted another application (by hand) on 11/10/2014, wherein he submitted medical documents of his mother and sister's illness and requested for his reinstatement into the service.

11. That it is stated and submitted that in reply to Commandant 158 Bn, CRPF query, the DIGP Range

2025:JHHC:28414

Pune vide signal No. P.III-2/2014-EC-1 dated 27/11/2014 has intimated that appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation, after verifying his conduct and integrity during his absence from the Force. Accordingly, the matter has been taken up with the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kanpur Town, (UP) vide 158 Bn, CRPF office letter No. D.V-1/2014-158-EC.II dated 02/12/2014 followed by a subsequent reminder dated 16/01/2015 for verification of the conduct and integrity of the petitioner for the intervening period from resignation. In turn, the Superintendent of Police, District Kanpur Town, (UP) had submitted his report vide letter No CR-71/15 dated 06/02/2015 which was received in office of the Commandant 158 Bn, CRPF on 19/02/2015 that his conduct and integrity is beyond doubt.

12. That it is stated that as per Sub Rule 4 to 6 of Rule- 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation. But provision of these Rules is applicable while accepting resignation purely either on public interest or when the intervening period between date of resignation and permission to withdraw resignation is not more than ninety days. In this instant case, the petitioner had resigned from the service on 30/06/2014 and DIGP, CRPF Range, Pune vide signal No. P.III-02/2014-EC.I dated 27/11/2014 was received in office of the Commandant 158 Bn, CRPF on 28/11/2014 after expiry of 90 days from date of resignation. Further the verification of the conduct and integrity report of the complainant was received from the civil police only on 19/2/2015. As such the H.O.O. was not competent to permit said petitioner to withdraw his resignation at this belated stage. Accordingly, self-explanatory proposal regarding request for withdrawal of resignation and re-instatement into service of the petitioner was taken up with DIGP, CRPF, Range Pune vide letter No. D.V-1/2014-158-EC.II dated 12/3/2015 for according condonation by the competent authority to relax the time-limit which had exceeded 90 days in accordance with Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972. In turn, the DIGP, CRPF, Pune Range vide his letter No. P.II-2/2014-EC.I dated 13/04/2015 has clarified that "no merit in the request of the petitioner is found for withdrawal of his resignation. Hence, petitioner's request should be rejected." The content of the DIGP, CRPF, Range Pune has been conveyed to the petitioner vide letter No. D.V-1/2015-EC.II dated

2025:JHHC:28414

16/04/2015."

8. Further, the counsel for the respondents has also filed

the supplementary affidavit by producing the original

records of the entire decision-making process; whereby and

whereunder the resignation was accepted and later on the

withdrawal of the resignation of the petitioner was rejected.

By the said affidavit the respondent's authorities have

brought on record the file noting leading to issuance of the

impugned order.

9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

without assigning any reasons, the impugned order has

been passed. The petitioner has further submitted that the

reason has been assigned in the Counter Affidavit

stipulating therein that the decision has been taken with

respect to the claim of the petitioner in the light of the

provision as contained in Rule-26 (4) (i) (ii) of Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 but the reason which is now

being improved in the affidavit ought to have been reflected

in the impugned order.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Versus Chief Election

Commission, New Delhi1 and in the case of East Coast

Railway versus Mahadev Appa Rao,2 to submit that the

reasons cannot be supplemented in the shape of affidavit.

1978 (1) SCC 504

2010 (7) SCC 678

2025:JHHC:28414

10. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has pointed out

paragraph-8 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the

Respondents to submit that the resignation was accepted

on 29.06.2014 and the application for withdrawal of

resignation was made on 25.08.2014 and was received by

the authorities on 17.09.2014 which was well within time

limit of 90 days in view of Rule-26(4)(iii) of the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Ld. Counsel further pointed out at paragraph-11 of the

Counter Affidavit to show that the conduct and integrity of

the petitioner was beyond doubt. It has been further

pointed out that the respondents at paragraph-12 of the

Counter Affidavit has stated that the letter for withdrawal of

resignation was received in the office on 28.11.2014 after

expiry of 90 days from the date of acceptance of resignation

and it has been categorically pointed out that the same is in

contradiction of paragraph-8 of the Counter Affidavit

wherein they have stated that the letter was received within

90 days from the date of resignation.

11. From bare perusal of the impugned order it transpires

that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order

and the reasons for issuance of impugned order has been

improved by way of filing affidavit by the respondent

authorities. The respondent authorities have

supplemented/improved the case by assigning reasons in

the affidavit filed on their behalf.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

2025:JHHC:28414

Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) at paragraph-8 has held as

under:-

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombayv. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :

"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of India East

Coast Railway Versus Mahadev Appa Rao (supra) has

held at paragraph-9 as under:-

"9. There is no quarrel with the well-settled proposition of law that an order passed by a public authority exercising administrative/executive or statutory powers must be judged by the reasons stated in the order or any record or file contemporaneously maintained. It follows that the infirmity arising out of the absence of reasons cannot be cured by the authority passing the order stating such reasons in an affidavit filed before the court where the validity of any such order is under challenge......."

13. In the light of the fact that no reasons have been

assigned in the impugned order, the impugned order

suffers from infirmity and fit to be quashed. Normally, in

such cases, the matter can be remanded. However,

remanding the matter to the authorities concerned would

be a futile exercise as the reasons have already been

assigned by the respondents in the Counter Affidavit and

on remand the authorities concerned would reiterate the

same ground. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the

2025:JHHC:28414

legality of the reasons mentioned in the affidavit and the

decision-making process may be looked into to arrive at a

conclusion whether the decision-making process is sound

or suffers from perversity.

14. After going through the relevant facts, documents and

pleadings in the writ petition it is necessary to go through

the relevant provisions under Central Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred as "Rules") which

deals with the conditions under which the appointing

authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation

in the public interest. Rule-26 of the Rules reads as under:

"26. Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service.

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.

(4) The Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:-

(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation;

(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;

(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days;

(iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.

2025:JHHC:28414

(5) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the Appointing Authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government. (6) When an order is passed by the Appointing Authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service. (7) A resignation submitted for the purpose of Rule 37 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government."

Emphasis Supplied

15. Rule-88 of the Rules deals with power to relax. For

brevity rule-88 of the Rules reads as under:-

"88. Power to relax "Where any Ministry or Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules, causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, writing, dispense with or relax by order for reasons to be recorded in writ the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner:

Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms."

16. Thus, it is evident that Rule-26(4)(iii) of the Rules

provides that the appointing authority may permit a person

to withdraw his resignation and while accepting resignation

purely either on public interest or when the intervening

period between date of resignation and permission to

withdraw resignation is not more than 90 days.

It is also evident that Rule-26(4)(i) (ii) of the Rules

provides that the appointing authority may permit a person

to withdraw his resignation, after verifying his conduct and

integrity during his absence. It has been admitted by the

respondent authorities at paragraph-11 of the Counter

Affidavit that the conduct and integrity of the petitioner was

beyond doubt and the petitioner clearly satisfies the

2025:JHHC:28414

conditions mentioned under Rule-26 (4) (i) (ii) of the Rules.

17. Hence, the stand of the respondents that powers

under Rule-26(4)(iii) could not be exercised by the

respondents on the ground that the application for

withdrawal resignation was received after 90 days from the

date of acceptance of resignation gets falsified from their

own statement and pleadings at paragraph-8 of the Counter

Affidavit wherein they have clearly admitted that the

application dated 25.08.2014 for resignation was received

by the office on 17.09.2014 i.e. well within 90 days from the

date of acceptance of resignation i.e. on 29.06.2014.

The said fact has also been admitted in the

supplementary affidavit dated 28.01.2019 filed by the

respondents wherein they have annexed the file noting and

have admitted at Page No.9, 16 and 17 that the application

for withdrawal of resignation was made before completion of

90 days.

18. Even otherwise, the respondents in their affidavit have

accepted the fact that the appointing authority was still

competent to exercise the powers at the belated stage i.e.

after lapse of 90 days in view of Rule-88 of the Rules.

19. It further transpires that the respondents in their

affidavit dated 28.01.2019 has tried to justify the decision-

making process by annexing file noting. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law that mere

noting in Government Official files are matters of internal

deliberations and don't bear legal sanctity and inter

2025:JHHC:28414

departmental communications/ file noting cannot be relied

upon as a basis to claim any right. [Refer Mahadeo Versus

Sovan Devi,3 and Pimpri Chinchwad New Township

Development Authority Versus Vishnudev Cooperative

Housing Society & Ors.4

20. Looking into the totality of the facts and the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision-making

process suffers from perversity and consequently the

impugned order dated 16.04.2015 is, hereby set-aside. The

petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and allowed to

resume his duties. The period not spent on duty shall be

regularized for the purposes of pensionary and other

notional benefits.

However, so far as back-wages for the intervening

period is concern; the petitioner is given liberty to file a

proper application for grant of the same which shall be

considered by the respondent's authorities in accordance

with law. The entire exercise shall be completed preferably

without a period of 16 weeks from the date of production/

receipt of copy of this order.

21. With these observations the writ petition is hereby

allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 16/09/2025 Amardeep/ A.F.R

2023(10) SCC 807

2018(8) SCC 215