Ram Prasad Tailor vs The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal

We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2000, dismissing the writ petition, arising out of the order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, by which the Appeal No. 130/95 was dismissed, upholding the order of the Tribunal.

The appellant Ram Prasad Tailor was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Urban Area Family Planning Centre, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara. He submitted an application on 27.10.1994, seeking voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.1.1995. The application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Appointing Authority, namely, Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 24.12.1994. In preparation to his retirement, with effect from 31.1.1995, the appellant was asked to hand over the charge of his seat to another UDC. In compliance of the order, the charge was voluntarily handed over by him on 28.12.1994.

On 30.1.1995, the appellant submitted an application addressed to the Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur through proper channel i.e. through C.M.H.O., Bhilwara, withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement, on the ground that his family circumstances had changed. The application was forwarded by the C.M.H.O., Bhilwara to the Additional Director (Administration) on 30.1.1995 itself. It was actually received by the Additional Director (Administration) on 1.2.1995, who rejected the application by his order dated 10.3.1995, on the ground that the application had been accepted on 24.12.1994.

The relevant Rule 244(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, for withdrawing the notice of voluntary retirement, is quoted as below:-

"Rule 244(1)(f)

A Government servant may, with the approval of the Appointing Authority, withdraw the notice given under clause(a) of this sub-rule provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice."

The Tribunal held that Rule 244(1)(f) provides that the notice for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn only after it is approved by the Appointing Authority. The employee is required to give specific reasons for withdrawing the notice, and after considering the circumstances, the Appointing Authority is to take decision. Since no reason was given in withdrawing the notice, there was no material before the Appointing Authority, on the basis of which it could have taken a decision.

The Tribunal found that the Appointing Authority actually received the withdrawal application on 1.2.1995, i.e. after the date, on which the voluntary retirement had become effective. The C.M.H.O., Bhilwara was not the Appointing Authority of the appellant. He had forwarded the application on the same date, which reached the Appointing Authority on 1.2.1995. The Tribunal further found that since the appellant had, on 28.12.1994, voluntarily handed over the charge to another UDC, his intention for voluntary retirement was clear, and that, he had ceased to be in the employment, for consideration of his application. The Tribunal distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr, on the ground that the normal rule, which prevails is that a person can withdraw his resignation before it is effective does not apply in full force in a case at hand because the government servant cannot withdraw resignation, except with the approval of the competent authority. The Tribunal, in the present case, held that the only reason given was that he is withdrawing the notice on the ground of change in family circumstances. No attempt was made to elaborate the change in the family circumstances.

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by a short order with the reason that the application for withdrawal could not be treated under Rule 244(1)(f), as the period of the notice prescribed, was upto 31.1.1995, and that, prior to expiry of the period, the competent authority had accepted the application.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Rule 244(1)(f) does not restrict the right of a public servant for withdrawing the application, even if it was accepted, provided an option is exercised before the date, from which the voluntary resignation is effective. The restriction imposed by Rule 244(1)(f) for such withdrawal of the voluntary resignation, should be accepted by the competent authority. He submits that the reasons were informed and the competent authority was not required to go into the details and record his satisfaction over the reasons, so informed, as such reasons are personal to the public servant. He has relied upon the judgment in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr, in which, in para 13, the Supreme Court observed thus:-

"......We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one''s future with any amount of certainty; a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees."

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India and Another, , in which the application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent-Management, but since the appellant was not relieved from service, by the date when the voluntary retirement became effective, and was allowed to continue, the Supreme Court held that the resignation, inspite of its acceptance, could be withdrawn before the effective date.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that Rule 244(1)(f) restricts the right of withdrawal, before or after the date, when the resignation has become effective. He submits that in the present case, the appellant had voluntarily handed over the charge to the next incumbent in the office on 28.12.1994. He did not give sufficient reasons for withdrawing the resignation, and that, the application for withdrawal submitted only a day before, when the resignation became effective, was addressed to the Appointing Authority, but was given to the C.M.H.O., who was not competent to pass any order, accepting the withdrawal of the application. The application, so submitted, was forwarded on the same day. It was actually received in the Office of the Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, who was the competent authority under Rule 244(1)(f) on 1.2.1995. By that date, the resignation had become effective. The competent authority did not record any satisfaction on the reasons for withdrawal. He rejected the application on the ground that the voluntary resignation had become effective.

Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal and the writ petition respectively. The withdrawal of resignation was subject to the approval by the Appointing Authority under Rule 244(1)(f). The appellant had handed over the charge voluntarily to next incumbent in the office on 28.12.1994. The application for withdrawal of the voluntary resignation was submitted after handing over of the charge, and a day, prior to his request for voluntary resignation was to take effect.

In our view even if, in view of the observations made in Balram Gupta''s case (supra), the reasons with regard to change in the circumstances of the family, were to be examined liberally, for arriving at a satisfaction to pass orders on the application, the conduct of the appellant in handing over the charge voluntarily, was sufficient, for rejecting the application for withdrawal of the voluntary resignation. We also find that the appellant was fully aware that the power of accepting the withdrawal can be exercised only by the Appointing Authority i.e. Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, sitting at Jaipur. In the circumstances, the application should have been made to reach in time, for the orders, to be passed by the Appointing Authority, before the last date, on which the voluntary resignation was to take effect.

We do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that as a UDC, he was only required to submit application to his immediate superior, to be forwarded to the Appointing Authority. Rule 244(1)(f) clearly provides that a government servant, with the approval of the Appointing Authority, can withdraw the notice, provided a request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the period. The Rule does not admit, in such cases, the ordinary procedure of making the applications through proper channel, to be adopted. It is a special Rule, which restricts withdrawal of the application by the government servant. The Appointing Authority should have been given an opportunity to exercise his powers under the Rule, for withdrawing the notice before the last date when the voluntary retirement was to take effect.

We further find that the voluntary act of the appellant to hand over the charge of his office to the next incumbent on 28.12.1994, was a relevant factor, to be taken into consideration, in taking a decision of withdrawal of notice. In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra and Others, , the Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, an intimation in writing sent to the appropriate authority by an incumbent, of his intention or proposal to resign, from a future specified date, can be withdrawn by him at any time, before it becomes effective. In the present case, Rule 244(1)(f) is a statutory bar, in accepting the application for withdrawal, except with the approval of the Appointing Authority.

In the entirety of the circumstances, in which the application for voluntary retirement was accepted, and that, the appellant had handed over the charge of the office voluntarily on 28.12.1994, and further, the circumstances, in which, the notice of the voluntary retirement was accepted on 24.12.1994, and that, the application was not presented before the Appointing Authority, before the voluntary retirement became effective, there was no legal error in the order of the Appointing Authority, rejecting the application.

The Special Appeal is dismissed.