[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rama Prasad Tripathy vs State Of Odisha Represented By The .... ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 33360 of 2020
Rama Prasad Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Baug, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha represented by the .... Opposite Parties
Commissioner-cum- Secretary,
Home Department, Government
of Odisha & others
Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 05.02.2026
No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Mrs. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned decision by office order dated 26 th
May, 2020 as at Annexure-2 of opposite party No.3 and further
to direct the opposite parties to permit him to join in his duty
and to pay him salary with effect from 3rd April, 2019 on the
grounds stated therein.
3. The petitioner was appointed as per Annexure-1 by the
order of the Government in Housing and Urban Development
Department dated 15th November, 2016 as Assistant Section
Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300/- Rs.34,800/- with Grade
Pay of Rs.4200/- with usual DA and other allowances. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 3 rd
April, 2019 and thereafter, requested withdrawal with a
representation dated 10th February, 2020 but it was not
accepted, rather, such request was rejected by a decision and
order duly communicated on 26th May, 2020 by the
Government on the premise that the same merits no
consideration in view of GA and PG Department Circular
No.11783 dated 2nd July, 1986. Thereafter, as it is pleaded on
record, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted vide
Annexure-3 with effect from 3rd April, 2019.
4. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
would submit that withdrawal of resignation was not
considered, instead, it was rejected vide Annexure-2 and almost
after a year, it was accepted with effect from 3rd April, 2019.
The further submission is that in view of the Circular of the
Government in GA Department referred to in the counter
affidavit at Annexure-C/1, prompt action is required in the
acceptance of the resignation after it was received. The
contention is that the resignation letter was submitted in the
year 2019, which was not acted upon, instead, was rejected
considering the representation dated 10th February, 2020 in the
month of May, 2020 and thereafter, at last, vide Annexure-3, it
was accepted but from an anterior date i.e. 3 rd April, 2019.
Furthermore, referring to Annexure-C/1 to the counter
affidavit, the contention of Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate
is that if any such resignation is submitted, the authority
concerned is to ensure that a decision is taken within time limit
of three months prescribed therein. It is further contended that
no such decision was taken within the time limit fixed, instead,
withdrawal of resignation was rejected and ultimately, was
accepted almost a year later, hence, therefore, any such
decision as per Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in law.
5. Mrs. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State refers to the
counter affidavit and would submit that the resignation of the
petitioner was accepted in accordance with the rules applicable
and therefore, no any illegality has been committed by the
authority concerned and the decision dated 19th October, 2020
vide Annexure-3 is, hence, perfectly justified and in accordance
with law. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner was
negligent in his duty and even though, he joined on 25th April,
2019, failed to perform and discharge any such duty and it
amounted to gross negligence and in that connection, it was
followed by a correspondence vide letter dated 27th April, 2019
at Annexure-D/1 to the counter. In reply and response to the
above, Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate would submit that
petitioner was never allowed to join in work in the
establishment on and from the date of submission of the
resignation save and accept, in the performance of the election
duty as a Polling Officer, which is evident from Annexure-D/1
to the counter affidavit.
6. In course of hearing, Mr. Baug, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner cited a decision of the Apex Court
in Secretary Technical Education, UP and others Vrs. Lalit
Mohan Upadhyay and another (2007) 4 SCC 492 to contend
that an employee is entitled to withdraw his resignation before
acceptance of the same by the competent authority. The
submission is that the petitioner was well within his own rights
to withdraw the resignation, hence, the representation, but it
was not allowed on the ground stated in Annexure-2 but
unfortunately, after a year, the same was accepted for no
apparent reason.
7. On a reading of the Circular as at Annexure-C/1 to the
counter affidavit, it is made to understand that as soon as, the
resignation is received from an employee, it has to be processed
immediately without undue delay and the decision in that
regard, has to be taken within the time line fixed. In the instant
case, there has been a departure. Even though, the petitioner
submitted his resignation in the year 2019, considering the
representation dated 10th February, 2020 for its withdrawal, the
same was denied. Such resignation was filed but was accepted
in the month of October, 2020. The Circular of the Government
in GA Department as at Annexure-C/1 has been completely
given a go by. No reason has been assigned, as evident from
Annexure-3, for having accepted the resignation in 2020 after
refusing it initially. If representation was received from the
petitioner in the month of February, 2020 seeking withdrawal
of the resignation, it should have been immediately acted upon.
Anyhow, in the month of May, 2020, such withdrawal of the
resignation was denied. But, in October, 2020, the resignation
was accepted and that too with effect from 13th April, 2019.
The resignation and withdrawal and subsequent acceptance by
the authority concerned is not in accordance with the rules
applicable.
8. Considering the counter affidavit filed through opposite
party Nos.1 and 2, it does not appear as to what prevailed upon
the authority concerned to accept resignation almost a year
after receiving it. The decision of the Apex Court in Lalit
Mohan Upadhyay (supra) as has been relied on reiterates the
settled position of law that an employee is entitled to withdraw
his resignation at any time before the same is accepted by the
competent authority. Though, in the instant case, petitioner was
inclined to withdraw, the same was not allowed, but at last, it
was followed by Annexure-3. The process and the manner in
which, the petitioner has been treated by the authority
concerned is clearly in flagrant violation of the Circular i.e.
Annexure-C/1 and therefore, it cannot be sustained in law and
thus, the decision dated 19th October, 2020 as per Annexure-3
is liable to be interfered with and quashed.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned orders at Annexures-2 and 3
are hereby set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to
allow the petitioner to rejoin as Assistant Section Officer in
Housing and Urban Development Department in the scale of
pay as he was entitled to all with the allowances releasing the
dues entitled to till 19th October, 2020 and fixing it thereafter
notionally with a decision in that regard at the earliest
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
12. A copy of the order be handed over to Mrs. Mohanty,
learned ASC for the State for its onward intimation to opposite
party No.3 and for its early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
