Supreme Court of India
S.D. Manohara vs Konkan Railway Corporation Limited on 13 September, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2024 INSC 693
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2024
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15788 of 2021
S.D. MANOHARA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION
LIMITED & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The adjudication in this case is intended to resolve a long
standing service dispute between the parties, rather than to lay
down any precedent of law.
3. The short facts necessary for resolution of this dispute revolve
around the invariable question that arises in disputes involving
withdrawal of the resignation letter1, i.e. whether the employee
Signature Not Verified
Resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, is an established principle of law; Suman v.
Digitally signed by
1 Marwah
Indu
Date: 2024.09.13
Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 161; Air India Express Limited v. Captain
17:12:03 IST
Reason:
Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129; Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Limited,
(2005) 8 SCC 314; Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228; Union of India v. Gopal
Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301.
1
has withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the
employer or not. Having examined the matter in detail, we have
arrived at the conclusion that resignation was in fact
withdrawn before its acceptance. We have thus allowed the
appeal and directed reinstatement of the appellant. Further,
to balance equities, we ordered the salary payable for the period
that the appellant has not worked to be restricted to 50% of the
salary payable for the said period.
4. The appellant has been in service of the respondent since 1990.
After having put in 13 years of service, he tendered his
resignation on 05.12.2013 stating that it may be considered as
coming into effect on expiry of one month. On the question
whether this resignation letter was withdrawn before its
acceptance, there are a number of letters and instances cited
by the appellant and the respondent as well, but the crucial
letters that would clinch the issue are just four in number.
5. The respondent states that the letter of resignation was
accepted on 15.04.2014 w.e.f from 07.04.2014. Respondent
further states that the appellant sought to withdraw his
resignation dated 05.12.2013 only on 26.05.2014, which could
not be accepted and therefore, they have rejected the request
on 23.06.2014 and relieved the appellant w.e.f. 01.07.2014.
2
5.1 On the other hand, the appellant’s primary submission was
that the letter dated 15.04.2014 was never issued to him. It
was only an internal communication of the respondent. He
further submits that the said communication dated
15.04.2014 was not even marked to the appellant and it has
no reference to appellant’s resignation letter dated 05.12.2013.
That, it is an internal communication is also evidenced by the
fact that it does not fix any date for relieving, instead it directed
necessary action like no dues certificate etc. to be given to the
appellant before relieving him. Importantly, the appellant
fortifies his case by stating that he continued in service despite
the initial letter dated 05.12.2013 and had in fact reported on
19.05.2014. He relied on letter dated 10.05.2014 issued by the
respondent directing him to report to duty pursuant to his
application dated 24.04.2014 for casual leave for two days i.e.
for 25th and 26th of April 2014. He also relied on letters of his
wife dated 17.04.2014 and 20.05.2014 requesting the
respondent not to accept her husband’s resignation. A
certificate of competency issued by the respondent stating that
the appellant is competent to take the Engineering Block is also
relied on by the respondent employer.
3
6. Questioning the letter dated 23.06.2014, formally rejecting his
withdrawal, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 50662/2014
(S-RES) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The
learned Single Judge by its judgment dated 16.07.2019 allowed
the Writ Petition and directed reinstatement of the appellant
with all benefits. Challenging the said order of the Single Judge,
the respondent filed a Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 (S-RES)
before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru which was
allowed by the Division Bench by the order impugned before
us.
7. The analysis and decision of the Division Bench is confined to
just two paragraphs in the otherwise long judgment.
Paragraphs 5 and 21 of the judgment are as under:-
“5….
Here in the instant case, the resignation was not
immediately accepted as sought for by the petitioner on
expiry of one month. The resignation which was
submitted on 05.12.2013 was accepted with effect
from 07.04.2014. This was communicated to the
petitioner on 15.04.2014 with a relieving date. The
letter to withdraw the resignation was made on
26.05.2014. The petitioner was communicated
rejection of his request to withdraw the resignation
only on 23.06.2014. The petitioner was relieved on the
basis of the said communication on 01.07.2014 and
official order was issued on 15.07.2014…. In the
present case, the resignation was not accepted as
sought for by the petitioner at the expiry of one month
from 05.12.2013 and he was allowed to work till he
was relieved only on 01.07.2014 with office order
issued on 15.07.2014…”4
7.1 Again in the concluding paragraph no. 21, the Division Benchof the High Court held as under:-
“21. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is
of the opinion that the employer was justified in
rejecting the request made by the respondent-
employee in respect of withdrawal of resignation as his
resignation dated 05.12.2013 was accepted with
effect from 07.04.2014 and the application for
withdrawal was submitted on 26.05.2014, i.e. after
expiry of the period on which the resignation came into
force.”
8. Questioning the correctness of the decision of the High Court
the appellant filed the present appeal, and this Court issued
notice on 29.10.2021. We heard Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil,
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR and
Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of the appellant. We
also heard Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Madhav Atul Chitale, Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Advocates,
Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR and Mr. Sauryapratapsinh
Barhat, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
9. At the outset, we may record that, even assuming that the
appellant withdrew resignation letter dated 05.12.2013 on
26.05.2014, it is just about five months in a long service of 24
years in the Indian Railways. Between these two admitted
dates, lie the competing and highly contested claims of parties
that the resignation is either withdrawn or not withdrawn
5
before its acceptance. Our enquiry is confined to finding this
fact.
10. The respondent-employer strongly relies on the letter of
acceptance of resignation dated 15.04.2014 and submits that
it has come into effect from 07.04.2014. We are inclined to
accept the submission made by the appellant that the letter
dated 15.04.2014 is an internal communication. There is no
clear evidence about the service of such letter on the appellant.
Further, it is also not denied that the appellant has been
continuously in touch with the respondent. There is no reason
as to why the respondent-Corporation would write a letter on
10.05.2014 requesting the appellant to report to duty for
considering his unauthorised absence from 28.04.2014 to
18.05.2014.
11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has in fact reported to
duty on 19.05.2014. There is also the communication of the
appellants wife on 17.04.2014 and 20.05.2014 requesting that
the resignation dated 05.12.2013 should not be accepted by
the respondents. As stated earlier, there is also the letter dated
10.05.2014 of the respondent asking the appellant to report on
duty for considering his unauthorised absence from
28.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 which gives an indication that there
6
was no finality to the letter of resignation dated 05.12.2013.
The learned single Judge was correct in his conclusion that the
resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance. The relevant
portion of the single Judge order is as under:-
“13. In the present case, the resignation which was
submitted on 05.12.2013 with a request to accept it at the
expiry of one month was stated to have been accepted only
on 15.04.2014. There is undue delay in accepting the
resignation by the respondents. In the above decision, the
delay of mere 13 days in communicating acceptance of the
resignation, is held to be not an undue delay so as to infer
that resignation had not already been accepted. Therefore,
the decision in Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar’s case is also of no
help to the respondents.
14. In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner
having submitted his letter dated 26.5.2014 seeking to
withdraw the resignation much before the effective date,
01.07.2014 with official order on 15.07.2014 by which the
petitioner was relieved of his duties, withdrawal of
resignation ought to have been accepted by the respondents
and continued the petitioner in service. The contrary
decision by the respondents by the communication dated
23.06.2014 that withdrawal of resignation is not accepted
and decision accepting the resignation stands good, is not
sustainable in law….”
12. In our opinion, the decision of the Single Judge is correct, and
the Division Bench committed an error in not eschewing the
communication dated 15.04.2014 from consideration.
13. In view of the above, and in the facts and the circumstances of
the case, we allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru in
Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 (S-RES).
7
13.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the
appellant shall be reinstated into service within thirty days
from the date of our order. He shall however be entitled to
receive 50 percent of salary for the period he is said to have
been relieved from service i.e. from 01.07.2014 under letter
dated 23.06.2014 to the date of reinstatement, pursuant to our
orders. The amount shall be calculated and paid within a
period of two months from today. This period shall however be
counted for pensionary benefits, if any.
13.2 Parties shall bear their own costs.
………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………….J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
NEW DELHI;
September 13, 2024.
8