Case at a Glance
An officer resigned from Delhi Technological University in 2016, accepted his relieving and experience certificates, joined NIT Calicut, and later claimed his DTU resignation was never validly accepted. He then resigned from NIT Calicut too and tried to withdraw that resignation. The Delhi High Court ordered his reinstatement at DTU, while the Kerala High Court refused reinstatement at NITC. The Supreme Court held that DTU’s Board of Management validly ratified the acceptance, which related back to the original date, and that NITC lawfully refused withdrawal; it set aside the DTU reinstatement and dismissed his challenges.
B.S. Rawat joined DTU as Assistant Registrar (Legal) on 23 August 2010. In 2016 he resigned and asked for the notice period to be waived. Professor Yogesh Singh, who was holding only additional charge as Vice-Chancellor, accepted the resignation by memo dated 25 May 2016, effective 31 May 2016, and DTU issued his no-dues, last pay and experience certificates, which he accepted. On 22 September 2016 he sought to withdraw the resignation on the ground that the Board of Management had not accepted it. The Board ratified the acceptance at its meeting on 26 September 2016, and the withdrawal request was rejected on 3 November 2016. He joined NIT Calicut as Deputy Registrar on 8 February 2017.
At NITC, he submitted a conditional resignation on 8 November 2018, which was returned as impermissible, and then an unconditional one. It was accepted on 22 November 2018, communicated on 4 December 2018, and he was relieved on 11 January 2019; his requests to withdraw (citing a deputation selection) were rejected by a reasoned order on 7 January 2019. In the Delhi High Court, a Single Judge directed reinstatement at DTU with back wages and 9% interest; the Division Bench (8 August 2022, L.P.A. No. 68 of 2022) upheld reinstatement but denied back wages. In Kerala, a Single Judge ordered reinstatement at NITC without back wages, but the Division Bench (1 December 2020) set it aside. Both sides came to the Supreme Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an invalid acceptance of resignation by an officer lacking authority be ratified by the competent authority so as to relate back, and can an employee who has enjoyed the benefits of his exit later withdraw the resignation and seek reinstatement?
Ratification, Relation Back and the Rule Against Approbate and Reprobate
Justice Alok Aradhe, writing for the Bench, agreed with the Delhi High Court that DTU’s Board of Management was the competent authority to accept the resignation, since the power to appoint includes the power to accept resignation, so the acceptance by an officer holding additional charge was not valid on its own. But the High Court erred on ratification. The Court explained that “Ratification means making a previously invalid act valid”, that it operates retrospectively, and that “Only the competent authority can ratify an invalid act.” The Board ratified the acceptance on 26 September 2016; “Once ratified, the acceptance related back to 25.05.2016”, so no live resignation remained to be withdrawn on 22 September 2016. The Court also noted that the respondent had sought the waiver, taken his certificates and joined a new job: “The resignation thus stood consummated by the conduct of the parties”, and “He cannot have his cake and eat it too.”
On NIT Calicut, the Court read the proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, under which a resignation “shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority”; its communication or the running of a notice period does not decide when it becomes effective. Under the Office Memorandum dated 11 February 1988, withdrawal before relieving is ordinarily allowed, but the competent authority may refuse it for recorded reasons. NITC’s reasoned refusal was not shown to be mala fide, perverse or unlawful, and a writ court cannot substitute its own view. The Court drew on Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 02 SC CK 0022, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh, Maharashtra State Mining Corporation v. Sunil, National Institute of Technology v. Pannalal Choudhury and Air India Express Ltd. v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 08 SC CK 0081, among others.
What the Court Actually Held
- The power to accept a resignation lies with the appointing authority; acceptance by an officer holding only additional charge was not valid by itself, but the competent authority could ratify it.
- Ratification by the competent authority operates retrospectively; DTU’s acceptance related back to 25 May 2016, leaving nothing to withdraw on 22 September 2016.
- An employee who seeks waiver, accepts relieving benefits and takes new employment cannot later treat his resignation as a nullity; under Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, resignation takes effect on acceptance, and a reasoned refusal of withdrawal stands.
- DTU’s appeal (C.A. 9308 of 2024) was allowed and the reinstatement direction set aside, with W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2019 dismissed; the respondent’s appeal (C.A. 9309 of 2024) and SLPs against NITC were dismissed, with no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Disputes over withdrawal of resignations are common in public employment; this judgment clarifies when acceptance becomes effective and how ratification cures an authority defect.
- It applies the rule against approbate and reprobate to employees who enjoy the benefits of their exit and later seek reinstatement.
- It confirms that a reasoned refusal to permit withdrawal before relieving will not lightly be disturbed under Article 226.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees
- Think carefully before resigning; under rules like Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, a resignation can take effect on acceptance, before you are relieved.
- Accepting relieving certificates and joining another job can defeat a later claim that your resignation was never validly accepted.
For Counsel and Institutions
- If an acceptance was signed by an officer lacking authority, have the competent authority ratify it; the Court held ratification relates back.
- Record reasons when refusing a withdrawal request; the Court upheld NITC’s refusal because it was reasoned and not perverse.
- Cite Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Air India Express Ltd. v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu alongside this judgment on resignation and withdrawal.
Key Takeaways
- Appointing authority accepts resignations; ratification can cure acceptance by the wrong officer.
- Ratification relates back to the date of the original act.
- Benefits taken on exit bar a later attack on the resignation.
- No reinstatement at DTU or NIT Calicut.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an employee withdraw a resignation after it is accepted?
It depends on the applicable rules. Here, under the proviso to Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, resignation took effect on acceptance by the appointing authority, and the authority could refuse withdrawal for recorded reasons. The Court upheld NITC’s reasoned refusal.
What if the resignation was accepted by an officer who had no authority?
The competent authority can ratify that acceptance. The Court held ratification operates retrospectively, so DTU’s acceptance related back to 25 May 2016.
Why did the Court say he could not have his cake and eat it too?
Because he had sought waiver of notice, accepted his no-dues and experience certificates and joined another job, yet later claimed the resignation was a nullity in order to seek reinstatement.
Conclusion
Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat brings together two strands of service law — the effect of ratification and the finality of an accepted resignation — and ties them to a simple principle of fairness: a person cannot accept the benefits of leaving and then deny that he left.
Practical takeaway: Employees should decide on resignation carefully and act consistently afterwards; institutions should ensure the competent authority accepts or ratifies resignations and gives reasons when refusing withdrawal.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com