Sri Nagraj v. The Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3244 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:

SRI. NAGRAJ S/O R. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.535, 18TH G CROSS 1ST BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. GOPIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶2THE CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATION AND STRUCTURE (SOUTH) BANGALORE-560 001.

¶3UNDER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (SERVICE-B) KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE CHIEF ENGINEER CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAMA LTD OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION (SOUTH) ZONE PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, NEW SAIYAJI ROAD, MYSORE-570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.12.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-F FOR THE POST OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner is aggrieving before the Writ Court against the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated

18.12.2020 whereby his application No.5235/2017 has been negatived. He was complaining before the Tribunal that the respondents have grossly erred in accepting his resignation letter dated

16.07.2009 on 23.02.2011 when in the interregnum vide letter

dated 13.12.2010 he had sought for withdrawal of the request for resignation.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that law relating to resignation is well settled by now; ordinarily every employee will have a right to apply for resignation unless otherwise provided by the Service Rules; The Service Rules regulate applying for and acceptance of resignation; the Apex Court in a catena of decisions has observed that an employee can withdraw the resignation letter at any time before it is accepted, unless the rules otherwise provide for; the resignation letter having been withdrawn, there was nothing which the Government could accept on 23.02.2011 and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal as also Government's acceptance of the resignation are liable to be voided.

¶3Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents vehemently oppose the petition, making submission in justification of the Tribunal's order and the order of the Government accepting resignation. He submits that ordinarily an employee is entitled to withdraw the request for resignation at any time before it is accepted. However, if

the employee after submitting the resignation letter goes away from the employment once for all, such an ordinary norm would not be invocable, because of the conduct that animates the request for resignation.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we declined indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal. "Law relating to resignation can be summarized; An employee can apply for resignation at any time… he can withdraw the resignation request at any time before it is accepted unless the rules otherwise provide and subject to modalities."

The Apex Court has held that even after acceptance, resignation may be permitted to be withdrawn subject to exceptions if a concrete case is made out.

¶5The above ordinary rule position would not come to the aid of petitioner inasmuch as after submitting the resignation letter on 16.07.2009 he vanished away from the employment, once for all. He made an application for withdrawal only on 13.12.2010 i.e., after more than a year reckoned from the date of request. However, the resignation was accepted on 23.02.2011. This we would have faltered, had

the petitioner continued in employment. However, his conduct shows that very knowledgably and intentionally he had resigned and therefore, he went away from the employment by abandoning it. Absence of an employee from the seat or post in public employment would create lot many difficulties, needs no research.

In the above circumstances, petition is dismissed.

Costs made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19