Termination of Service after Resignation: Supreme Court Decision on Voluntary Resignation and Withdrawal

The case of The Director General of Police & Anr. vs. M Jeyanthi revolves around the issue of voluntary resignation and the right to withdraw resignation after acceptance. The respondent, M Jeyanthi, a police constable, resigned from her position and sought to withdraw her resignation shortly thereafter. The appellants, the Director General of Police and another, had accepted her resignation, but the respondent later sought to retract it, citing procedural delays and the absence of necessary clearances. The Supreme Court had to determine whether she had the right to withdraw her resignation after it had been accepted, and whether the High Court’s decision to reinstate her was justified.

Background of the Case

The respondent, M Jeyanthi, was working as a Grade II Police Constable at the IXth Batallion, Manimuthar, Palayamkottai, and had joined the service in April 2010. While working at the All Women’s Police Station, Thoothukudi, the respondent tendered her resignation on June 1, 2017, seeking to be relieved from her job. The resignation was accepted on June 12, 2017, but on July 13, 2017, the respondent wrote a letter withdrawing her resignation, claiming it was submitted under duress.

The respondent filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, challenging the decision to accept her resignation and sought her reinstatement. The High Court allowed her writ appeal, directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service, relying on Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision, arguing that the resignation had been validly accepted, and the withdrawal of resignation was not permissible as per the applicable rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

The Supreme Court had to address several critical legal questions:

• Whether a resignation, once accepted by the appointing authority, could be withdrawn by the employee.
• Whether the respondent had the right to withdraw her resignation within the 90-day notice period as prescribed by Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
• Whether the High Court was correct in reinstating the respondent despite the legal provisions and the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of her resignation.
• Whether the provisions of Rule 35A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Rules allowed for the withdrawal of resignation after its acceptance.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Director General of Police & Anr.)

The appellants, represented by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, raised the following arguments:

• Once a resignation is accepted by the appointing authority, the employee loses the entitlement to withdraw the resignation, as per Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.
• The resignation was validly accepted, and the respondent had no legal right to withdraw it after it had taken effect on June 12, 2017.
• The High Court erred in allowing the withdrawal of resignation after it had been accepted and acted upon by the appellants.
• The respondent’s actions violated the statutory rules that govern the resignation and withdrawal process, and the High Court’s decision to reinstate her was legally incorrect.

Arguments by the Respondent (M Jeyanthi)

The respondent, represented by Mr. Sumit Kumar, presented the following counter-arguments:

• The resignation was submitted under duress, and the respondent should have been given an opportunity to withdraw the resignation before it was accepted.
• The respondent had the right to withdraw her resignation within the 90-day notice period, as provided under Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
• The High Court was correct in interpreting the provisions of the Act and the rules to allow the withdrawal of the resignation before the 90-day notice period expired.
• The respondent’s withdrawal of resignation was a legitimate exercise of her rights, and the High Court’s decision to reinstate her with continuity of service should be upheld.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, made the following key observations:

1. Interpretation of Rule 35A

The Court found that Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services clearly outlines the procedure for resignation and its withdrawal:

“Under Rule 35A, once a resignation is accepted, it becomes final, and the employee loses the right to withdraw it. However, before acceptance, the employee has the right to withdraw the resignation. The acceptance of the resignation by the appointing authority is the final act that terminates the employee’s service.”

The Court emphasized that the respondent’s resignation, accepted on June 12, 2017, had taken effect, and the attempt to withdraw it on July 13, 2017, was legally futile.

2. Validity of the Resignation and the Right to Withdraw

The Court disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation that the respondent had the right to withdraw her resignation even after it was accepted. The Court stated:

“The acceptance of resignation is an act that brings an end to the contractual relationship between the employee and the employer. Once this process is completed, the employee cannot unilaterally change their position and withdraw the resignation.”

The Court ruled that the respondent’s attempt to withdraw the resignation after it was accepted had no legal standing.

3. Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016

The Court observed that while Section 50 of the Act provided for a notice period, it did not alter the fact that once the resignation was accepted, the employee could no longer withdraw the resignation:

“Section 50 provides for a notice period, but it is the acceptance of the resignation by the employer that completes the process of resignation. The respondent’s attempt to withdraw the resignation after the notice period had passed does not invalidate the acceptance of resignation or provide grounds for reinstatement.”

The Court found that the 90-day notice period under Section 50 had been adhered to, and the respondent’s resignation had been accepted in accordance with the rules.

4. Role of the High Court

The Court concluded that the High Court had incorrectly relied on the interpretation of the 90-day notice period to allow the withdrawal of the resignation:

“The High Court erred in concluding that the respondent had the right to withdraw the resignation within the 90-day notice period. Once the resignation was accepted, the employee had no right to alter their decision.”

The Court overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the appellant’s stance regarding the resignation’s acceptance.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

“The appeal filed by the Director General of Police is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The respondent’s resignation, once accepted, stands and cannot be withdrawn. The respondent is not entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.”

The Court clarified that the respondent may apply for reappointment when any selection process takes place in the future, but the current appeal was decided in favor of the appellants.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for employment law, particularly in the context of resignation and its withdrawal:

• Clarity on Resignation Withdrawal: The judgment provides clear guidance on the legal position regarding the withdrawal of resignation once it has been accepted by the employer.
• Administrative Compliance: The ruling emphasizes the need for administrative authorities to follow established rules and timelines for resignation, notice periods, and acceptance of resignations.
• Employee Rights: The case highlights the balance between an employee’s right to withdraw a resignation and the employer’s right to accept and terminate the relationship upon receiving the resignation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in The Director General of Police & Anr. vs. M Jeyanthi clarifies the legal position on the withdrawal of resignation after acceptance. The judgment strengthens the legal framework surrounding employee resignation processes, highlighting the finality of resignation acceptance and the limits on withdrawal once the process is complete.

Petitioner Name: The Director General of Police & Anr..
Respondent Name: M Jeyanthi.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Madras.
Judgment Date: 13-12-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Director General vs M Jeyanthi Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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