Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Right to Withdraw Resignation After Election Loss
The case of The Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla revolves around the legal right of a government employee to withdraw their resignation. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether an assistant teacher, who resigned to contest elections but lost, could later withdraw her resignation and be reinstated in her previous position.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court, which ruled in favor of the teacher. The Court found that the government’s refusal to allow withdrawal of the resignation was arbitrary, as no disciplinary charges had been acted upon against the employee. The ruling emphasizes the principles of fairness, administrative accountability, and the legal rights of government employees under service rules.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Kamlesh Rani Bhatla, was an assistant teacher working under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. She resigned from her position on March 22, 2012, to contest the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections. Her resignation was promptly accepted on March 29, 2012, with effect from the date of submission.
However, after losing the election in April 2012, she applied for withdrawal of her resignation on April 21, 2012. Despite multiple reminders in 2013 and 2014, the authorities failed to act on her request. She eventually approached the Delhi High Court, which directed the government to take a decision on her application. The government rejected her request on May 14, 2015, leading her to challenge the decision before the CAT.
Arguments by the Parties
Arguments by the Petitioner (Government of NCT of Delhi)
- The government argued that the resignation had been accepted and acted upon, and once resignation is accepted, there is no provision for withdrawal.
- The petitioner had participated in political activities while still employed, violating the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
- A charge sheet had been issued against the respondent for attending political events and campaigning while holding a government position.
- The case of Manisha Sharma v. Directorate of Education was cited to assert that resignation, once accepted and acted upon, could not be withdrawn.
Arguments by the Respondent (Kamlesh Rani Bhatla)
- The respondent argued that her resignation was tendered for contesting elections and not due to dissatisfaction with her job.
- She had applied for withdrawal of resignation within a month of its acceptance, which falls within the permissible period under service rules.
- Since no disciplinary inquiry was conducted against her, the government could not use the charge sheet as grounds to reject her reinstatement.
- The case of Nirmal Verma v. MCD was cited, where the Delhi High Court had ruled in favor of reinstating an employee who withdrew their resignation after an election loss.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
Application of Rule 26(4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 26(4), which governs the withdrawal of resignation:
“The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw their resignation in the public interest if the resignation was tendered due to compelling reasons and the request for withdrawal is made due to a material change in circumstances.”
The Court found that the respondent met the conditions of this rule.
Failure of the Government to Act on Disciplinary Charges
The Court noted that although the government claimed to have issued a charge sheet against the respondent for political activity, no inquiry had been conducted. The Court observed:
“Once the authorities had given vigilance clearance to the applicant and allowed her to contest the elections, they are estopped from using pending charges as a ground for rejecting her reinstatement.”
Comparison with Past Precedents
The Supreme Court distinguished the case from Manisha Sharma, where the resignation had been voluntarily tendered for personal reasons. Instead, the Court found that the case aligned more with Nirmal Verma, where an employee resigned to contest elections and was allowed to withdraw their resignation upon losing.
Final Judgment by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The rejection of the respondent’s withdrawal application was arbitrary and unjustified.
- The respondent should be reinstated in her previous position as an assistant teacher.
- The intervening period between resignation and reinstatement should be regularized as per existing service rules.
- The government retains the right to proceed with disciplinary inquiry if it so chooses.
Impact of the Judgment
- Strengthens employee rights: Government employees who resign under special circumstances retain the right to withdraw if conditions permit.
- Ensures procedural fairness: Arbitrary refusals of resignation withdrawal will now be subject to stricter scrutiny.
- Sets a clear precedent: Resignations tendered for election purposes can be withdrawn if the candidate loses and applies within a reasonable time.
- Prevents misuse of disciplinary charges: Authorities cannot arbitrarily reject resignation withdrawals without due process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in The Government of NCT of Delhi v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla affirms the principle that government employees should be given a fair opportunity to withdraw resignations when circumstances change. The decision ensures that resignation withdrawals are treated consistently and fairly, preventing arbitrary denials based on administrative discretion.
Petitioner Name: The Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors..Respondent Name: Kamlesh Rani Bhatla.Judgment By: Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Krishna Murari.Place Of Incident: Delhi.Judgment Date: 23-03-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: the-government-of-nc-vs-kamlesh-rani-bhatla-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-03-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
