Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was considering a petition filed by Simy S., who was holding the post of BCK Secretary, when was relieved from duty despite submission of withdrawal of her resignation.

The Court criticized the then Bar Council, its Chairman, and Committees [respondents 1 to 4] for orchestrating a fraudulent move to create an impression that the Secretary's resignation was accepted before she withdrew it:

“records indicate a calculated, fraudulent attempt made by the respondent 1 to 4, by way of manipulation of records and concocting the documents, to deny the legitimate rights of the petitioner… there is a clear planned attempt by adopting unlawful means, has been made by the 1st respondent and its responsible officers, despite being a statutory body to look after the welfare of the members of a noble profession… Such a manipulation of serious nature, is not something that could be expected from a body like the 1st respondent.”

The Court found that as per the Kerala Service Rules [KSR], the Secretary is entitled withdraw her resignation. He added that the withdrawal cannot be rejected if the Committees managing the Bar body ratifies the Chairman's acceptance of the resignation letter.

“the Chairman…is only one among the members of the said Committees and he was not even entrusted with any special/specific power to take a decision on his own, that binds the Committee and thereby to treat it as a decision of Bar Council of Kerala. Therefore, even if it is accepted for argument sake that, the Chairman…has accepted the resignation…that cannot be treated as a decision that amounts to acceptance of such resignation by a competent authority. This would mean that, the acceptance of resignation…by the Chairman would not give any sanctity to such acceptance, so as to deprive the petitioner from invoking her right to withdraw such resignation as contemplated under Rule 23 Chapter III Part I KSR.”

The Court thus quashed two communications sent to her by the Bar Council Chairman – the one that intimated about the acceptance of her resignation letter and its subsequent ratification; and two, the one that rejected her withdrawal of resignation.

Facts

The petitioner before the Court was working as the Secretary to the Bar Council when she gave her resignation letter, allegedly due to pressure from the then members of the Committees managing the Bar body.

The petitioner, for the purpose of preparing minutes, had recorded the meeting of the Committee in her phone but she was made to believe that she had done an illegal act and would be proceeded against unless she resigned. However, on the very next day itself, she submitted a letter withdrawing her resignation but the same was not accepted.

A few days later, she was informed that her resignation was accepted by the then Chairman and then ratified by the then Committees before the withdrawal was received. Her withdrawal was rejected and she was not permitted to rejoin duty. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

Contentions raised

The petitioner contended that the then Chairman could not accept her resignation since Bar Council was the authority that appointed the petitioner. The petitioner also pointed out that in the bond executed in relation to the petitioner's appointment, it was made clear that the Kerala Service Rules would apply and these Rules permit withdrawal of resignation before its acceptance. It was argued that resignation becomes effective only after acceptance of resignation and relieving of duty.

The respondents, including the then Bar Council and its office bearers, contended that even though the then Chairman was only virtually participating in the meeting, he accepted the petitioner's resignation when it was sent to his residence on the very same day.

They pointed out that since the petitioner was appointed after the expiry of the Bar Council's term and after the formation of the three committees managing the Council, the committees are the appointing authority. Therefore, the committee can accept her resignation and relieve her. Moreover, it is up to the committee to either reject or accept the resignation.

The person appointed to the post of Secretary to replace the petitioner also resisted the plea. The stand taken was that KSR would not be made applicable to the Bar Council.

Court's findings

The Court was of the view that since the Bar Council was being managed by the committees appointed by the BCI - Executive Committee, Enrolment Committee, Committee of Office Bearers - and since the Chairman is not empowered to make decision on behalf of the committees, his acceptance of the petitioner's resignation was not valid.

Referring to Rule 23 KSR, the Court noted that the two conditions for resignation – acceptance of resignation and officer relieved of duties – to become effective have not been satisfied in the present case. Since the petitioner's letter was only an offer to resign and not an unconditional relinquishment, she was entitled to withdraw it.

The Court further opined that there were strong materials indicating that documents were manipulated to defeat the petitioner's right to withdraw her resignation by creating an endorsement in the resignation submitted by her.

“Further, the practical difficulty in taking out a document after completing the meeting at 8.30 p.m. on 7.1.2026, to the residence of the Chairman at Chavakkad which is about 75 kms.from the office of the Bar Council of Kerala is a crucial factor that shows the improbability in making such endorsement on 7.1.2026 itself. Further, the lack of any entry in the inward and outward registers with regard to the same fortifies the said probabilities. Therefore, under no circumstances, the endorsement of the Chairman…could be accepted,” the Court said.

The Court thus found that the petitioner withdrew her resignation before it was validly accepted. It directed the Bar Council and the authorities to take steps to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty by relieving the person who was appointed to substitute her.

Case No: WP(C) No. 2772 of 2026

Case Title: Simy S. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 441

Counsel for the petitioner: Renjith Thampan (Sr.), Jaishankar V. Nair, Arathi Karunakaran, Cristy Therasa Suresh

Counsel for the respondents: P. Ramakrishnan, O.V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.), H. Vishnudas, George Varghese

Click to Read/Download Judgment