Karnataka High Court Dismisses Civil Servant’s Petition Seeking Reinstatement after Resignation Accepted by Government: Once Accepted, Resignation is Irrevocable.

Court’s Decision

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition seeking reinstatement after her resignation was accepted by the competent authority. The court held that resignation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, barring exceptions which were not applicable in this case. The court also noted the petitioner’s prolonged unauthorized absence and deemed the Tribunal’s denial of relief to be justified.

Facts

The petitioner, a civil servant, tendered her resignation on June 25, 2019, citing unauthorized absence from service since February 4, 2019. Her resignation was accepted by the competent authority on January 28, 2022. The petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) to void the acceptance and sought reinstatement, arguing that she should have been permitted to withdraw her resignation. The Tribunal rejected her application.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner’s resignation could be withdrawn after being accepted by the competent authority.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement despite prolonged unauthorized absence from duty.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The resignation letter should not have been acted upon, as the petitioner intended to withdraw it.
• Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, arguing that resignation withdrawal was permissible under similar circumstances.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Justified the Tribunal’s order, emphasizing that resignation was voluntarily submitted and duly accepted in compliance with service rules.
• Highlighted the petitioner’s prolonged unauthorized absence and failure to respond to multiple show-cause notices.

Analysis of the Law

The court emphasized that resignation is a voluntary act that severs the employer-employee relationship. It observed that:

• An employee can withdraw a resignation before acceptance, but no such rule or precedent allows withdrawal after acceptance.
• Acceptance of resignation need not be communicated to the employee for it to take effect.
• Service jurisprudence identifies resignation, removal, retirement, and death as conventional modes of employment termination.

Precedent Analysis

The court distinguished the petitioner’s case from S.D. Manohara, where the resignation had a future effective date and was withdrawn before acceptance. Here, the resignation was accepted by the competent authority without any conditionality or pending communication, rendering it irrevocable.

Court’s Reasoning

The court agreed with the Tribunal’s findings that the petitioner was absent from duty without justification for an extended period and failed to report despite multiple show-cause notices. The resignation, being voluntary and lawfully accepted, did not fall under any exceptions allowing withdrawal. The petitioner’s reliance on case law was held to be misplaced due to differing factual circumstances.

Conclusion

The writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed. The court ruled that no injustice was caused to the petitioner by the Tribunal’s or the government’s actions.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that resignation is irrevocable once accepted and highlights the consequences of prolonged unauthorized absence in public employment. It provides clarity on the limitations of withdrawing resignation under service jurisprudence.

Also Read – Kerala High Court: “Rectification of Revenue Records is a Necessary Administrative Duty”—Directs Restoration of Original Thandaper Account and Acceptance of Taxes