THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.versusM JEYANTHI

                         [2019] 15 S.C.R. 207                             207


        THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.                             A
                                  v.
                           M JEYANTHI
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9423 of 2019)
                       DECEMBER 13, 2019                                  B

        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
       Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services –
r.35A– Respondent, Grade II Police Constable at the IXth Batallion,       C
Manimuthar, Palayamkottai tendered resignation on 1 June 2017 –
Accepted on 12 June 2017 – Later, sought withdrawal of the
resignation –Respondent’s representation rejected by the Director
General of Police – Challenged – Writ petition dismissed – Writ
appeal allowed by the Division Bench holding that in terms of s.50
of the 2016 Act, a period of ninety days’ notice is necessary and the     D
appellants faulted in accepting the resignation without waiting for
the period of notice to expire – Held: Provisions of r.35A of the
Rules are analogous to s.50 of the 2016 Act – Respondent, as a
police constable, was governed by r.35A – Clause (a) of r.35A
requires that before resigning, a member of the service must furnish      E
not less than three months’ notice in writing to the appointing
authority – Under clause (b), the notice may be withdrawn before
its acceptance – Withdrawal of the resignation is not permitted after
acceptance –Under clause (c) of r.35A, the appointing authority,
while accepting the resignation, is empowered to indicate a date          F
from which it will take effect which will not be later than the date of
expiry of the notice – Thus, the authority can legitimately accept
the resignation from a date anterior to the expiry of the notice – In
the present case, the resignation dtd. 1 June 2017 was accepted on
12 June 2017 – It was only a month thereafter on 13 July 2017 that
the respondent purported to withdraw the resignation – Resignation        G
having taken effect upon its acceptance, the withdrawal was of no
consequence – High Court not justified in holding that within period
of ninety days, the period of notice required under the Rules, it was
open to the employee to withdraw the resignation even after
                                                                          H
                                 207
208            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     acceptance – This construction is contrary to the provisions of r.35A
      – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Dismissal of the writ
      petition by the Single Judge, affirmed – Tamil Nadu Government
      Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – s.50.
             Respondent, appointed in 2010, was working as Grade II Police
B     Constable at the IXth Batallion, Manimuthar, Palayamkottai. She tendered
      her resignation on 1 June 2017, which was accepted on 12 June 2017.
      On 13 July 2017, the respondent purported to address communication
      withdrawing the resignation. The High Court in the writ petition filed by
      the respondent, directed the Director General of Police to consider the
C     representation and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
      The DGP passed an order rejecting the representation, which was
      challenged by the respondent. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
      Division Bench allowed the writ appeal granting reinstatement with
      continuity of service. Hence, the present appeal.

D           Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: The provisions of Rule 35A of the Special Rules of
      Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services are analogous to Section
      50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of
      Service) Act, 2016. The respondent, as a police constable, was
E     governed by Rule 35A. Clause (a) of Rule 35A requires that before
      resigning, a member of the service must furnish not less than
      three months’ notice in writing to the appointing authority. Under
      clause (b), the notice may be withdrawn before its acceptance.
      Withdrawal of the resignation is not permitted after acceptance
      by the appointing authority. Under clause (c), the appointing
F     authority is required to issue orders on the notice of resignation
      before the date of expiry of the notice. If the resignation is being
      accepted, the date of acceptance is not to be later than the date
      of the expiry of the notice. If no order has been passed, the
      resignation is deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of
G     the period of notice. The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Rule
      35A make it abundantly clear that: (i) A resignation can be
      withdrawn before its acceptance; and (ii)Upon acceptance, the
      employee loses the entitlement to withdraw the resignation.


H
       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR. v.                          209
                     M JEYANTHI

Moreover, it is evident from clause (c) of Rule 35A that the             A
appointing authority, while accepting the resignation, is
empowered to indicate a date from which it will take effect which
will not be later than the date of expiry of the notice. The authority
can legitimately accept the resignation from a date anterior to
the expiry of the notice. Upon the acceptance of the resignation,        B
the cessation of service takes place and it is not open to the
employee to withdraw the resignation. In the present case, the
resignation dated 1 June 2017 was accepted on 12 June 2017. It
was only a month thereafter on 13 July 2017 that the respondent
purported to withdraw the resignation. The resignation having
taken effect upon its acceptance, the withdrawal was of no               C
consequence. The acceptance of the resignation was complete
on 12 June 2017. Once this was the position, the withdrawal was
of no consequence in law. The High Court was not justified in
coming to the conclusion that within a period of ninety days, which
is the period of notice required under the Rules, it was open to         D
the employee to withdraw the resignation even after acceptance.
This construction is clearly contrary to the provisions of Rule
35A. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set
aside, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single
Judge. It is, however, clarified that this order will not come in
                                                                         E
the way of the respondent applying for appointment afresh as and
when any selection takes place and any such application may be
considered in accordance with law. [Paras 7-12][211-E; 212-B-
H; 213-A-C]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9423
                                                                         F
of 2019.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2019 of the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court in W.A. (MD) No. 1596 of 2018.
      M. Yogesh Kanna, Karthik Rajendran, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu,
Advs. for the Appellants.                                                G
     Dr. P. Jyothimani, Sr. Adv., Sumit Kumar, Hemant Kumar,
Bhupendra Kumar, Gunjan Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.


                                                                         H
210              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
              1. Leave granted.
            2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
B     Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27 March 2019.
      Allowing a writ appeal, the Division Bench set aside an order of the
      learned Single Judge which had dismissed the writ petition filed by the
      respondent and directed the State to reinstate the respondent back into
      service with continuity.

C             3. The facts, insofar as they are material to the controversy, are
      thus:
             The respondent was working as a Grade II Police Constable at
      the IXth Batallion, Manimuthar, Palayamkottai. She was appointed on 1
      April 2010. While working at the All Women’s Police Station, Thoothukudi,
D     the respondent tendered her resignation on 1 June 2017 and sought to be
      relieved from her job. The resignation was accepted on 12 June 2017.
      On 13 July 2017, the respondent purported to address a communication
      withdrawing the resignation. The respondent instituted a writ petition1
      before the High Court which was disposed of on 1 March 2018 with a
      direction to the Director General of Police to consider the representation
E     and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
             4. On 2 June 2018, the Director General of Police 2 passed an
      order rejecting the representation. In doing so, the DGP relied on the
      provisions of Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police
      Subordinate Services3. The order of the DGP was challenged before a
F     learned Single Judge in a writ petition4 which was dismissed by an order
      dated 21 August 2018. The writ appeal5 filed by the respondent was,
      however, allowed. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that in
      terms of Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions
      of Service) Act 20166, a period of ninety days’ notice is necessary. In
      the view of the High Court, this period of ninety days is intended for the
G
      1
        Writ Petition No 3888 of 2018
      2
        “DGP”
      3
        “Rules”
      4
        Writ Petition No 18211 of 2018
      5
        Writ Appeal No 1596 of 2018
      6
H       “Act of 2016"
     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR. v.                                 211
  M JEYANTHI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

benefit not only of the authority, but for the person who tendered the        A
resignation to rethink whether the resignation should be withdrawn. The
High Court found fault with the appellants for having accepted the
resignation without waiting for the period of notice to expire and
accordingly set aside the decision. Consequently, reinstatement was
granted with continuity of service.
                                                                              B
       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, at the
outset, submits that the High Court has relied on the provisions of Section
50 of the Act of 2016 whereas the respondent was governed by Rule
35A of the Rules. Moreover, it was submitted that the provisions of
Section 50(2), which have been extracted in the judgment of the High
Court, contained an omission which would have a bearing on the                C
interpretation of the provision. Learned counsel submitted that once the
resignation was accepted, it was not open to the respondent to withdraw it.
       6. Opposing this submission, it was urged on behalf of the
respondent that the acceptance of the resignation on 12 June 2017 was
not valid in law since it was subject to the grant of Vigilance and other     D
clearances. Moreover, learned counsel supported the reasoning of the
Division Bench that in view of the requirement of ninety days’ notice, it
was open to the employee to withdraw the resignation before the period
of notice expired and the acceptance of the resignation in the meantime
would not affect that entitlement.                                            E
      7. The provisions of Rule 35A of the Rules are analogous to
Section 50 of the Act of 2016. The respondent, as a police constable,
was governed by Rule 35A, which is extracted below:
      “35A Acceptance of Resignation
                                                                              F
      (a) The member of the service may resign his appointment by
      giving notice of not less than three months in writing direct to the
      appointing authority with a copy marked to his immediate Superior
      Officer. The period of three months notice shall be reckoned from
      the date of receipt of such notice by the appointing authority.
                                                                              G
      (b) The member of the service may withdraw the notice of his
      resignation before its acceptance. Withdrawal of resignation will
      not be permitted after its acceptance by the appointing authority.
      (c) The appointing authority shall issue orders on the notice of
      resignation before the date of expiry of notice either accepting
                                                                              H
212             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A            the resignation from a date not later than the date of expiry of the
             notice or rejecting the same, giving the reasons thereof. If no
             such order is passed, the resignation shall be deemed to have
             been accepted on the expiry of the period of notice.”
              8. Clause (a) of Rule 35A requires that before resigning, a member
B     of the service must furnish not less than three months’ notice in writing
      to the appointing authority. Under clause (b), the notice may be withdrawn
      before its acceptance. Withdrawal of the resignation is not permitted
      after acceptance by the appointing authority. Under clause (c), the
      appointing authority is required to issue orders on the notice of resignation
      before the date of expiry of the notice. If the resignation is being accepted,
C     the date of acceptance is not to be later than the date of the expiry of the
      notice. If no order has been passed, the resignation is deemed to have
      been accepted on the expiry of the period of notice. The provisions of
      clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 35A make it abundantly clear that:
             (i) A resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance; and
D
            (ii) Upon acceptance, the employee loses the entitlement to
      withdraw the resignation.
             Moreover, it is evident from clause (c) of Rule 35A that the
      appointing authority, while accepting the resignation, is empowered to
E     indicate a date from which it will take effect which will not be later than
      the date of expiry of the notice. In other words, the authority can
      legitimately accept the resignation from a date anterior to the expiry of
      the notice. Upon the acceptance of the resignation, the cessation of
      service takes place and it is not open to the employee to withdraw the
      resignation.
F
             9. In the present case, as the facts which have been narrated
      indicate, the resignation dated 1 June 2017 was accepted on 12 June
      2017. It was only a month thereafter on 13 July 2017 that the respondent
      purported to withdraw the resignation. The resignation having taken effect
      upon its acceptance, the withdrawal was of no consequence. We do not
G     find merit in the submission that the acceptance of the resignation was
      invalid. The order which was passed clearly indicates the acceptance of
      the resignation. The order, however, provides that if the Vigilance and
      Anti Corruption Department indicated that any adverse remarks or if
      any adverse noting was made by the Special Branch CID, the resignation
      would be cancelled. The fact of the matter, however, is that the acceptance
H
     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR. v.                                  213
  M JEYANTHI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of the resignation was complete on 12 June 2017. Once this was the             A
position, the withdrawal was of no consequence in law.
       10. The High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion
that within a period of ninety days, which is the period of notice required
under the Rules, it was open to the employee to withdraw the resignation
even after acceptance. This construction is clearly contrary to the            B
provisions of Rule 35A.
       11. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 27 March 2019, affirming
the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. There shall
be no order as to costs.                                                       C
       12. We, however, clarify that this order will not come in the way
of the respondent applying for appointment afresh as and when any
selection takes place and any such application may be considered in
accordance with law.
                                                                               D
Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H