“Resignation Was Withdrawn Before Its Acceptance”: SC Orders Reinstatement Of Indian Railways Employee
The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of an Indian Railways employee into service after observing that his resignation letter was withdrawn before its acceptance.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, while upholding the decision of the Single Bench. The Single Bench had held that the decision of the Railways (respondent) in accepting the resignation of the employer (appellant) was not sustainable in law and that there was an undue delay in accepting the resignation by the respondents.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “Having examined the matter in detail, we have arrived at the conclusion that resignation was in fact withdrawn before its acceptance. We have thus allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the appellant. Further, to balance equities, we ordered the salary payable for the period that the appellant has not worked to be restricted to 50% of the salary payable for the said period.”
Senior Advocate Basavaprabhu S. Patil represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Atul Yeshwant Chitale appeared for the respondents.
The Court had to determine whether the employee withdrew his resignation before its acceptance by the employer since withdrawal of the resignation letter before its acceptance is an established principle of law.
The appellant had tendered his resignation after 13 years of service. After his letter was formally rejected by the respondents, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court. The Single Bench directed the reinstatement of the appellant with all benefits.
The challenge to the directions of the Single Bench was allowed by the Division Bench which held that the respondent was justified in rejecting the request made by the appellant in respect of withdrawal of resignation.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant “withdrew resignation letter dated 05.12.2013 on 26.05.2014, it is just about five months in a long service of 24 years in the Indian Railways.”
The Court noted that the respondent had strongly relied on the letter of acceptance of resignation and submitted that it came into effect 5 months after receiving the resignation.
“We are inclined to accept the submission made by the appellant that the letter dated 15.04.2014 is an internal communication. There is no clear evidence about the service of such letter on the appellant. Further, it is also not denied that the appellant has been continuously in touch with the respondent. There is no reason as to why the respondent-Corporation would write a letter on 10.05.2014 requesting the appellant to report to duty for considering his unauthorised absence,” the Court remarked.
The Bench also stated that it was an admitted fact that the appellant had reported to duty after withdrawing his resignation. The Court also considered the respondent asking the appellant to report on duty for considering his unauthorised absence from the dates which “gives an indication that there was no finality to the letter of resignation.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In our opinion, the decision of the Single Judge is correct, and the Division Bench committed an error in not eschewing the communication dated 15.04.2014 from consideration.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 693)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Basavaprabhu S. Patil; AOR Anirudh Sanganeria; Advocate Samarth Kashyap
Respondents: Senior Advocate Atul Yeshwant Chitale; AOR Suchitra Atul Chitale; Advocates Madhav Atul Chitale, Nirbhay Singh and Sauryapratapsinh Barhat