JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra against the respondents challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 1st March, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal.
2. Respondent No. 1 on his passing the Civil Services Examination of the Indian Police Service was allotted Maharashtra cadre and he joined as an Indian Police Service Officer in 1986. He was sent on Central deputation to Special Protection Group some time in February 1999. He was relieved to return to his home cadre on 10th April, 2000 and he joined his home cadre. On 4th December, 2000 he sent a letter to his Appointing Authority, viz., the President of India, New Delhi through the Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi and also through the Govt. of Maharashtra which reads as follows:
Sub: Resignation from the Indian Police Services.
Sir,
It is submitted that I am a member of the Indian Police Service of Maharashtra cadre and of 1986 batch.
Due to entirely personal reasons I hereby submit my resignation from the Indian Police Services. I request that the same be accepted at the earliest.
On receipt of the aforesaid communication from respondent No. 1, the petitioner wrote to him a letter dated 31st May, 2000 asking him to communicate his written statement for regularising his absence from duty till the resignation was accepted. He was asked to submit his application as to how the period of his absence could be regularised. He was also to state whether he had taken any Government loans/advances and if so, to give detailed particulars about the same. On 30.8.2000 another letter was written by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 that he would not be entitled to any pension benefits and that in order to accept his resignation he had to remit back the House Building Advance due to the Government along with interest immediately and also sanctioned study leave, all leave salary, allowances, fee, travel, etc., should be returned to the Government. The Director General of Police informed respondent No. 1 by a communication dated 31.7.2001 that unless he paid back the money due to the Government, no decision regarding his leave could be taken. He was asked to send his leave application for the period from 13.10.2000 till 12.1.2001. After receipt of the aforesaid communication from the petitioner, respondent No. 1 on 225.2001 communicated to the Director General of Police that due to serious domestic constraints he was unable to pay the outstanding amounts as indicated in the letter mentioned above. He also stated that he was withdrawing his resignation submitted earlier. He also stated that due to pressing domestic problems he was unable to join duty and, therefore, his leave should be extended. On 4.7.2002 a communication was sent by the petitioner under the signature of Dy. Inspector General of Police informing the respondent No. 1 that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs had conveyed the approval of the Competent Authority about the acceptance of his resignation from Indian Police Service with effect from 12.4.2000. The relevant part of the said letter reads as follows:
This is to inform you that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs have conveyed the approval of the Competent Authority about acceptance of your resignation from Indian Police Service with effect from 12.4.2000(AN) and the Govt. of Maharashtra, Home Department issued notification in this regard vide No. IPS 38/2000/CR-195/Pol-l dated 21.5.2002. A copy of the said notification is also addressed to you (copy enclosed for information).
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed, respondent No. 1 submitted a representation to his Appointing Authority through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra. The said representation of respondent No. 1 was rejected by order dated 30.1.2003 and consequently the respondent filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was entertained by the Tribunal and by order dated 1st March, 2005 the said application was allowed holding that since the respondent No. 1 had withdrawn his request for resignation which was to take effect from future date prior to acceptance of his request, therefore, the aforesaid acceptance of the resignation by the petitioner was illegal. It was also held that the request for withdrawal was addressed to the Govt. of Maharashtra and the same was withheld from the President. Consequently the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 21.5.2002 accepting the resignation of respondent No. 1 as well as order dated 30.1.2003 whereby the representation filed by respondent No. 1 was rejected. A direction was also issued for reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service with effect from 12.4.2000 with all consequential benefits.
4. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the original letter of resignation was addressed to the President of India who is the Appointing Authority of respondent No. 1 whereas the letter of withdrawal dated 22.8.2001 was not addressed to the Appointing Authority and the same was only addressed to the Director General of Police and, therefore, the said letter of withdrawal of resignation was of no consequence and did not amount to proper withdrawal of resignation letter. It was submitted that when a representation is required to be addressed to a specific authority and the same is not so addressed, the same has to be held to be no representation in the eye of law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Paul Manickam and Anr. and Kirti Kumar Narula v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. . It was also submitted that there was no letter of withdrawal of resignation and since the resignation of respondent No. 1 was accepted by a notification and since respondent No. 1 had joined a Private Company against the rules of the Government, the order of the Tribunal was totally erroneous and illegal and, therefore, is required to be set aside.
5. The Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted before us that the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal being based on cogent reasons, cannot be interfered with by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that when a request is made by submitting a resignation making the same effective from a future date, a request to withdraw the same could be made and when such a request is made before acceptance of the resignation, the same would have the effect of cancelling the earlier request and consequently the acceptance of such a resignation would be a nullity. In support of the said contention, the Counsel relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra ; Union of India v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarthy (2001) 1 SCC and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and Anr. 2002 SCC (L&S) 444.
6. It will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and Ors. v. O. P. Swarnakar and Ors. . In the said case the Supreme Court examined voluntary retirement schemes that had been floated by several Banks and held that though the issue involved related to service jurisprudence, the principles of offer and acceptance under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would be applicable. Distinction was made between “invitation to treat” and an “offer/proposal”. Scheme for voluntary retirement was held to be akin to “invitation inviting offers” and request of an employee seeking voluntary retirement was treated as a mere “offer”, that does not take effect till acceptance by the Competent Authority. It was further held that acceptance was required to be communicated to the employee.
7. In the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India (supra), it has been held that offer for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time by an employee till he is relieved from service. In the said case an employee had submitted application seeking voluntary retirement on 18.10.1995, which was accepted on 13.7.1997 and the said acceptance was also duly communicated. However, the employee in the said case was to continue in service till 26.9.1997, when he was to be relieved. Before the relieving date the employee changed his mind and submitted a letter on 7.8.1997 withdrawing his letter dated 18.10.1995 by which he had sought voluntary retirement. The Supreme Court held that the employee had to continue in service till 26.9.1997 and this would be the “effective date” and before the said date the employee had the right to withdraw his option to go on voluntary retirement. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court relied upon earlier decisions in the case of Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (supra); Balram Gupta v. Union of India 1988(1) SLJ 79 (SC) : 1987 Supp. SCC 228; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India ; and Power Financial Corporation Limited v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia 1997(3) SLJ 271 (SC) : (1997) 4 SCC 820, in which it has been held that a resignation which has already been accepted can be withdrawn before the “effective date”. In the case of J.N. Srivastava (supra), it has been held as follows:
It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India.
8. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid decisions makes it crystal clear that when a future date is specified in a resignation letter, such a resignation could be withdrawn by the concerned employee at any time before the same was accepted.
9. Therefore, a resignation can always be withdrawn by the concerned employee before the effective date. It is also settled position of law that even if such a resignation letter is accepted and effective date of the resignation is subsequent thereto and if the employee withdraws his resignation even after acceptance but before the effective date, the same also does not sever the relationship of master and servant between the concerned employee and the employer.
10. In the present case admittedly the respondent No. 1 had withdrawn his resignation which was to be operative from the date of acceptance as he had stated in the letter that it should be accepted with immediate effect, yet the same was accepted by the Competent Authority only after the same was withdrawn by respondent No. 1.
11. The only ground that is urged before us is that the said withdrawal letter submitted by respondent No. 1 withdrawing his resignation was not submitted to the Competent Authority namely the Appointing Authority but to a subordinate authority and accordingly the same was not valid and operative.
12. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, reference is required to be made to the submissions made by the petitioner before the Tribunal in their counter-affidavit. In Paragraph 19 of the said counter-affidavit the only defense that was taken by the petitioner was that considering the fact that respondent No. 1 was working elsewhere during his absence in violation of the rules, the Government decided to accept his resignation with effect from 12.4.2000 ignoring or not considering his request for withdrawal of resignation. This indicates that not only his resignation was accepted from a retrospective date but also on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was working elsewhere during his absence in violation of the rules. If in case there was any violation of the rules by respondent No. 1 that could be a case of misconduct for which separate proceedings were required to be drawn up by the petitioner. They should not have short-circuited the said procedure by accepting the resignation which was withdrawn by respondent No. 1 by his conduct and by writing a letter to one of the authorities. It is to be noted at this stage that the letter of resignation which was addressed to the President of India was also sent to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra and also to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. Respondent No. 1 sent the letter withdrawing his resignation to the Director General of Police under his letter dated 22.8.2001. The said letter specifies the intention of respondent No. 1 whereby he withdrew his resignation submitted earlier. Since the intention was expressed for withdrawing the resignation letter and since the same was submitted to one of the authorities to whom letter of resignation was sent, the same was required to be communicated to the Appointing Authority promptly with intimation that the respondent No. 1 had withdrawn his resignation and for necessary action. The said letter was dated 22.8.2001 whereas acceptance of the resignation letter was dated 4.7.2002 whereby the petitioner accepted his resignation effective from 12.4.2000. It is crystal clear that the aforesaid acceptance from a retrospective date was inoperative, illegal and contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the submission that is made before us that the said withdrawal letter is inoperative is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner in the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal wherein it was specifically stated that since respondent No. 1 was working elsewhere during his absence in violation of the rules, therefore, the Government decided to accept his resignation with effect from 12.4.2000.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are unable to accept the contention raised before us by learned Counsel for the petitioner. We hold that the said submission is without any merit.
14. For the reasons stated hereinbefore we agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed.