Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police ... vs Kalaiselvi on 23 February, 2021
W.A.No.213 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.213 of 2021
1. The Director General of Police (Training)
Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Viluppuram District.
3. The Principal
Temporary Police Training School
Mettur, Salem District. ... Appellants
Vs.
Kalaiselvi ... Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.06.2019 made in W.P.No.26675 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Govt. Pleader
Assisted by
Mr.K.S.Suresh
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muruganantham
__________
Page 1 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The matter pertains to the respondent writ petitioner having
resigned from service and, subsequently, changing her mind.
2. There is no dispute that the resignation was to take effect
immediately as would be evident from the relevant letter of February
19, 2018. The respondent clearly stated that she was not interested to
retain the post and "I hereby resign the above training herewith". She
also added that "I will not claim the above IInd Grade Constable post
under any circumstances." There is also no dispute that the
resignation was duly accepted on February 28, 2018 and she was
relieved from duty on March 2, 2018. It was only after the acceptance
of the resignation and the writ petitioner being relieved from duty that
a subsequent representation was made by the respondent indicating
her change of mind on March 3, 2018.
3. Upon the subsequent representation being rejected by a
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
writing of August 27, 2018, the respondent approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was allowed on
the ground that the manner in which the resignation letter had been
accepted with promptness and without appreciating the circumstances
under which the resignation letter was tendered, demonstrated a lack
of understanding on the part of the authorities. It was also held that
the authority ought to have waited at least a reasonable time as
indicated in Rule 36A of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate
Services Rules, 1978 before the resignation letter came to be
accepted. It was also observed that the resignation letter was accepted
by an officer who was not competent to accept the same. Judgments
of this Court were referred to by the respondent at the initial stage of
this appeal. However, the matter stands concluded now by the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported at 2019 SCC Online SC 1645
(Director General of Police v. M.Jeyanthi).
4. In that case, the policewoman tendered her resignation on
June 1, 2017 and sought to be relieved from her job. On June 12,
2017, the resignation was accepted. On July 13, 2017, the erstwhile
policewoman addressed a communication seeking to withdraw the
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
resignation. A writ petition followed upon the withdrawal of resignation
not being considered. The Writ Court directed the Director-General of
Police to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law. The Director-General rejected the representation
relying on Rule 35A of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Services. The order of the Director General was
challenged by way of a subsequent petition under Article 226, which
was dismissed. An appeal carried from the order of August 21, 2018
dismissing the writ petition was allowed.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in that case found that
Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of
Service) Act, 2016 permitted a period of 90 days' notice. The Division
Bench concluded that such period of 90 days was intended for the
benefit of not only the employer, but also for the person who tendered
resignation to rethink whether the resignation should be withdrawn.
The Division Bench found fault with the employer for having accepted
the resignation without waiting for the period of notice to expire and,
consequently, set aside the decision and directed reinstatement with
continuity of service. It was such judgment of the Division Bench that
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
was carried to the Supreme Court.
6. The Supreme Court noticed Section 50 of the said Act of 2016
and Rule 35A of the Special Rules and held that the Division Bench of
this Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that within a
period of 90 days, which was a period of notice required under the
Rules, it was open to the employee to withdraw the resignation even
after acceptance. The Supreme Court held that such construction was
clearly contrary to the provision of Rule 35A of the Special Rules. In
the discussion that preceded the legal finding rendered in the
judgment, it was observed that the resignation having taken effect
upon its acceptance, the withdrawal was of no consequence. In the
present case also, the resignation had been duly accepted before the
subsequent representation came to be made after the respondent was
relieved from her post.
7. It is sought to be asserted on behalf of the respondent that
the letter of resignation was not addressed to the appropriate
authority. It is well known that letters of resignation and such matters
are sent through the appropriate channel. In any event, the
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
respondent having unequivocally resigned and having issued a letter
which indicates her decision to be final and conclusive on such aspect,
cannot turn around and say that she had deliberately issued the letter
to a wrong official because she did not intend to act thereupon.
Indeed, the subsequent letter of withdrawal by the respondent runs
contrary to such fanciful argument put forth at the appellate stage.
The letter of withdrawal clearly indicated and accepted that the
respondent had earlier resigned. Once the respondent had accepted
that she had resigned and was seeking to make a representation for
her accepted resignation to be undone, it does not lie in the
respondent's mouth to complain of the manner of issuance of the letter
of resignation or the personnel with whom such letter had been
deposited.
8. The clear dictum of the Supreme Court in the judgment
referred to above is that once a letter of resignation is issued and the
same is accepted, a subsequent withdrawal may not be permitted.
9. It stands to reason that an employee in a disciplined force
would not be allowed to make a decision to resign and withdraw it
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
subsequently, particularly when there is an element of finality about
the decision. It is one thing to say that a person resigns with effect
from a future date and withdraws the same before such future date
arrives; and quite another to issue a letter of resignation which would
take immediate effect and turn around a few days later to withdraw
the same. There is also little doubt that when clauses of the kind, as
involved in the present case, permit a period of notice to be given to
the employer, such period cannot be seen to be for the benefit of the
employee. If a person in a disciplined force were to be permitted to
resign on a particular day and withdraw the resignation even after the
acceptance thereof within the next few days, every person faced with a
difficult roster or duty would attempt to do so and dodge the
unpleasant posting.
10. In the light of the Supreme Court dictum, other Division
Bench judgments of this Court to the contrary can no longer be
regarded as good law.
11. There is no merit in the respondent's case and in view of the
Supreme Court judgment referred to above, the judgment and order
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
dated June 12, 2019 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
W.A.No.213 of 2021 is allowed. However, there will be no order as to
costs. As a consequence, CMP No.946 of 2021 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
23.02.2021
Index : Yes
kpl
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.213 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(kpl)
W.A.No.213 of 2021
23.02.2021
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
