Shailaja K L vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Krishna S Dixit, J

Petitioner, a civil servant is grieving against State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 7.12.2022 whereby her Application No.2047/2022 has been negatived. In the said Application, her essential prayer was for the relief of reinstatement in service by voiding the order whereby, her resignation was accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the resignation letter in question could not have been acted upon and in any event, the employee ought to have been permitted to withdraw the same. This aspect of the matter having not been properly appreciated, the Tribunal has made the impugned order which warrants invalidation. He relies upon a decision of Apex Court in S.D.MANOHARA VS. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2546, in support of his submission. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal. Resignation is a voluntary act on the part of an employee by which he seeks to leave the service to which he is appointed. An employee who has tendered resignation voluntarily, is entitled to withdraw the same before it is accepted, unless the Service Rules otherwise provide. Even if the acceptance of resignation is not communicated to the employee, it makes no difference. We are not notified any Rule or Ruling which says the contrary. Once the resignation is offered and the same is duly accepted by the competent authority, resignation is complete & irrevocable, subject to all just exceptions. Case of the petitioner does not fit into any of the exceptions.

In Service Jurisprudence, removal, resignation, retirement & death are the conventional modes by which employer-employee relationship is determined. In the instant case we notice that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for a very long period and did not report for duty despite issuance of several Show Cause Notices, copies whereof petitioner herself has produced. Unauthorised absence creates lot many issues in public employment. Her resignation came to be accepted on 28.01.2022 by the competent authority, the copy whereof avails at Annexure-Q. The Tribunal having examined all aspect of the matter, has denied relief to the petitioner who could have been otherwise dismissed from service for remaining unauthorisedly absent from 4.2.2019 and she sent resignation letter dated 6.6.2019 only on 25.06.2019. No injustice is caused to the petitioner either by the order of the government or by the order of the Tribunal. The reliance of petitioner’s counsel on the decision of Apex Court in S.D.MANOHARA supra would not advance his case inasmuch as the fact matrix is completely different. That was a case wherein resignation letter was given mentioning a future date to take effect and that was withdrawn before it was accepted.

In the above circumstances, the petition being unworthy of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.