Anjum Hussain vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors

Petitioner was appointed as a Follower on compassionate ground in J&K Armed Police on 27.08.2007 and vide order dated 07.07.2009, formally appointed as Washerman in IRP-9th Battalion. He submitted an application to the respondents stating therein that he is not in a position to continue his services due to some domestic problems and tendered resignation from services w.e.f. 24.08.2009. Commanding Officer IRP 9th Bn, respondent No.5 after considered his application vide order dated 13.09.2010 accepted his resignation and he was struck him on the rolls of the Unit w.e.f. 24.08.2009.

It is submitted by the petitioner that he was suffering from depression and his mental health was not good, therefore, he tendered his resignation, but upon recovery, he moved a representation stating that he submitted his resignation in a disturbed state of mind and, as such, his resignation/termination order dated 13.09.2010 be revoked and he may be re-engaged.

The respondent No.2 vide Order No. 28 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 considered the representation of the petitioner and decided as under:

"8. Where the Commandant IRP-9th Battalion accepted the resignation after waiting for a period of one year, the same was tendered by the applicant, as such, an ample time was provided to the applicant for reconsidering it.

Whereas the applicant un-authorisdely absented from duty only after serving the department for a period of about one and half month and soon thereafter tendered his resignation from service about 7 years before submitting the instant application.

Whereas during a long period of 7 years the applicant did not challenge his resignation/struck off from services at any forum, now after a period of about 7 years of his resignation from services has submitted the instant representation with a false plea that the Commandant IRP-9th Bn struck off his name from the records of J&K Police with malafide intention.

I have gone through the contents of the application/representation submitted by the applicant and report of Commandant IRP-9th Battalion and came to the conclusion that the name of the applicant has been struck off from the records of J&K Police by Commandant IRP-9th Bn rightly in terms of Rule 118 of J&K Police Manual as the applicant has tendered his resignation from the service, as such, the representation of applicant is devoid of any merits and hence rejected. The undersigned is also looking after the work of DIR IRP Jammu Zone."

The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid decision and therefore, seeks quashing of Order No. 28 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 and also a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Follower in IRP-9th Battalion. The only ground agitated by the petitioner is that this resignation was in a disturbed state of mind as he was under depression after the death of his father and secondly, the petitioner had the responsibility of his family on his shoulders.

Respondents in their objections have stated that the petitioner had resigned from services on his own accord with effect from 24.08.2009 and his resignation was accepted on 13.09.2010, therefore, the representation has been made by him after a period of more than 7 years from the date he was struck off the rolls of the Unit. Since the petitioner after joining on 07.07.2009 absented himself from duties and did not join duty and subsequently resigned. Since the resignation has been accepted and he has been struck off from the rolls, the same cannot be withdrawn.

Mr. Sanchit Verma, counsel for the respondents, submitted that Order No. 599 of 2010 dated 13.09.2010 vide which the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by him and till date not assailed by him. Since the petitioner has submitted the resignation on his own will, therefore, he cannot now be struck off from the rolls of the Unit. More than seven years ago, he cannot now turn around and seek revocation of the same as well as his resignation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The only question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner having resigned on 24.08.2009 and his resignation having been accepted on 13.09.2010 w.e.f. 24.08.2009, can seek the revocation of the same after a period of more than seven years.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, reported as AIR 1969 SC 180, has categorically held that "the resignation is effective from the date on which it was accepted and subsequently withdrawal is ineffective even if acceptance of resignation has not been initiated to the appellant."

In Jai Ram v. Union of India, reported as AIR 1954 SC 584, it has been held as under:

"It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but he can be allowed to do so long as he continue in service and not after it has terminated."

Thus, the petitioner in fact seeks withdrawal of his resignation after a gap of seven years when his name has already been struck off from the rolls of the Unit, therefore, the representation of the petitioner has been rightly decided by the respondents vide order dated 13.12.2016, who after considering all the aspects of the matter has rejected the same being devoid of any merit.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.