Supreme Court of India

RA VINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 163
Decided: 6 March 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

The resignation accepted on 2 February 1991 is quashed and the appellant is to be reinstated without back wages.

Summary

The appellant, an Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, was accused of delays in dispatching communications and of failing to keep a copy of the Superintendent’s leave application on record. After being threatened and warned by the Superintendent, he tendered his resignation on 3 January 1991. He withdrew the resignation on 2 February 1991, before the acceptance was communicated, but the resignation was nevertheless accepted on the same day. The Supreme Court examined whether a resignation given under coercion could be validly accepted and whether a withdrawal made before acceptance could set aside the acceptance. The Court held that the resignation was obtained under threat, that the withdrawal was effective, and therefore the acceptance was illegal. Consequently, the Court quashed the acceptance and ordered the appellant’s reinstatement without any liability for back wages. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a resignation tendered under threat or coercion is valid under service law
Whether a withdrawal of resignation made before its acceptance can nullify the acceptance
Whether the employer can lawfully accept a resignation that was withdrawn prior to acceptance
Entitlement to reinstatement and liability for back wages after quashing of resignation

Subjects

service lawresignationthreatwithdrawal of resignationreinstatementpolice serviceadministrative law

Judgment

                            RAVINDER SINGH                                      A
                                        v.
                         STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

                             MARCH 6, 1995

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                              B

      Service Law-Resignation submitted under threat-Withdrawal-Accep- ·
tance quqshed and reinstatement directed.

      The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was alleged to        C
have made delay in despatching some communication and also failed to
keep a copy of leave application of Superintendent of Police on record. As
he was given threat and warning ht tendered his resignation on 3.1.91.
However, he withdrew his resignation on 2.2.91 but the resi~ation was
accepted on the same day.
                                                                                D
        Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : It is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue· in
service. The acceptance of resignation stands quashed and he should be
reinstated into service forthwith but without back wages. (520-D]
                                                                                E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4027 of
1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.92 of the Madhya
Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal in OA No. 2698
~mL                                                                             F
        Surya Kant for the Appellant.

        Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                        G
        Leave granted.

       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the facts and
circumstances, it would appear that it is a case warranting our interference.
It is seen that the appellant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the     H
                                    519
    520                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1995} 2 S.C.R.

A office of Superintendent of Police. On two occasions there was delay in
  dispatch of some communication. According to the explanation offered by
  the appellant, the Head Clerk was responsible for the delay for dispatch.
  It was on the third occasion that he did riot keep office copy of the leave
  application for earned.leave of the Superintendent of Police. In fact it is
  not the duty of the dispatch clerk but office/Head Clerk to keep the office
B copy for record. These three facts were taken into consideration by the
  Superintendent of Police and by giving insinuating threats or warning to
  the appellant, a sense of insecurity in continuance of employment was             '
  created. Obviously to get over the situation, he might have tendered
  resignation on January 3, 1991 but he had withdrawn it on February 2, 1991,    ;>---- .
C before the acceptance was communicated to him. On the same day the
  resignation was accepted.

        Under these circumstances, we thillk that it is an appropriate case
  for the appellant to continue in service. The.appeal is accordingly allowed.
  The acceptance of resignation dated February 2, 1991 stands quashed and
D there shall be a direction to reinstate the appellant into service forthwith
  but without back wages ..

                                                            ·Appeals allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search