Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagraj vs The Secretary on 17 March, 2025
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10848-DB
WP No. 3244 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3244 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGRAJ
S/O R. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
NO.535, 18TH G CROSS
1ST BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 032
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. GOPIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
Digitally signed by GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SHAKAMBARI DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
Location: HIGH
COURT OF M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
COMMUNICATION AND STRUCTURE (SOUTH)
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. UNDER SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (SERVICE-B)
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10848-DB
WP No. 3244 of 2021
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAMA LTD
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION (SOUTH) ZONE
PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING,
NEW SAIYAJI ROAD, MYSORE-570 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
DATED 18.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE A WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF THE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO-3 TO CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.12.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
FOR THE POST OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner is aggrieving before the Writ Court against the
State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 18.12.2020
whereby his application No.5235/2017 has been negatived. He
was complaining before the Tribunal that the respondents have
grossly erred in accepting his resignation letter dated
16.07.2009 on 23.02.2011 when in the interregnum vide letter
NC: 2025:KHC:10848-DB
dated 13.12.2010 he had sought for withdrawal of the request
for resignation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argues that law relating to resignation is well settled by now;
ordinarily every employee will have a right to apply for
resignation unless otherwise provided by the Service Rules; The
Service Rules regulate applying for and acceptance of
resignation; the Apex Court in a catena of decisions has
observed that an employee can withdraw the resignation letter
at any time before it is accepted, unless the rules otherwise
provide for; the resignation letter having been withdrawn, there
was nothing which the Government could accept on 23.02.2011
and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal as also
Government's acceptance of the resignation are liable to be
voided.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the official respondents vehemently oppose the petition,
making submission in justification of the Tribunal's order and
the order of the Government accepting resignation. He submits
that ordinarily an employee is entitled to withdraw the request
for resignation at any time before it is accepted. However, if
NC: 2025:KHC:10848-DB
the employee after submitting the resignation letter goes away
from the employment once for all, such an ordinary norm would
not be invocable, because of the conduct that animates the
request for resignation.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, we declined indulgence
in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the
Tribunal.
"Law relating to resignation can be summarized;
An employee can apply for resignation at any
time... he can withdraw the resignation request
at any time before it is accepted unless the rules
otherwise provide and subject to modalities."
The Apex Court has held that even after acceptance,
resignation may be permitted to be withdrawn subject to
exceptions if a concrete case is made out.
5. The above ordinary rule position would not come to
the aid of petitioner inasmuch as after submitting the
resignation letter on 16.07.2009 he vanished away from the
employment, once for all. He made an application for
withdrawal only on 13.12.2010 i.e., after more than a year
reckoned from the date of request. However, the resignation
was accepted on 23.02.2011. This we would have faltered, had
NC: 2025:KHC:10848-DB
the petitioner continued in employment. However, his conduct
shows that very knowledgably and intentionally he had
resigned and therefore, he went away from the employment by
abandoning it. Absence of an employee from the seat or post in
public employment would create lot many difficulties, needs no
research.
In the above circumstances, petition is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
