Govt Servant Who Resigned To Contest Election Can't Withdraw Resignation After Losing Poll: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee could not be said to have remained politically neutral, as was mandated under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (“Rules”), if s/he contested elections as an official candidate of a political party.Rule 3(1)(vii), provides that a government servant shall, at all times, maintain political neutrality. The division...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee could not be said to have remained politically neutral, as was mandated under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (“Rules”), if s/he contested elections as an official candidate of a political party.
Rule 3(1)(vii), provides that a government servant shall, at all times, maintain political neutrality.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja further opined that even if such elections were contested after resignation from service, while considering withdrawal of such resignation, he would considered to have undertaken such prohibited activities.
For context, petitioner was working as a Senior Auditor with North Western Railway. For contesting the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly elections, he resigned from the post, and lost the elections. Thereafter, he submitted an application seeking withdrawal of resignation and reinstatement, which was denied. He submitted an original application before the Central Administrative tribunal, which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the petition.
The Tribunal had rejected the application on two grounds. Firstly, Rule 26(5) of the Rules was not fulfilled, that laid down that withdrawal of resignation may be accepted if the resignation was given under compelling reasons, and there was some material change in circumstances subsequently. Secondly, that there was violation of Rule 3(1)(vii) and Rule 5(1).
Rule 5(1) provided that no government servant shall be a member of, or be associated with any political party or any organisation which took part in politics.
On the contrary, the petitioner argued that before resignation, he was not aware that he would not be entitled to pensionary benefits upon acceptance of resignation. He became aware of this fact only after the resignation was accepted. Hence, there was material change in circumstances and Rule 26(5) was fulfilled.
Further, it was submitted that Rule 3(1)(vii) was not applicable to the petitioner, since the elections were contested after his resignation was accepted, during which he was not in government service.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the relevant Rules, and rejected his argument in relation to Rule 26(5). It was observed,
“…it is undisputed that the petitioner tendered his resignation in order to contest the election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The same was a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-entitlement of the petitioner to pensionary benefits constitutes a compelling reason for withdrawal of his resignation. Furthermore, we find that there was no material change in the circumstances which existed at the time of tendering his resignation.”
In relation to Rule 3(1)(vii) and Rule 5(1), the Court observed,
“The petitioner, having contested the election as an official candidate of a political party, could not have remained politically neutral. Moreover, upon acceptance of his resignation, the petitioner would be treated as having remained in continuous Government service without any break, meaning thereby that, during the period of his service, the petitioner would be considered to have undertaken the aforementioned prohibited activities.”
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the petition.
Title: Neeraj Bishnoi v Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 378