Public Servant Can't Exit Service By Resignation To Frustrate Disciplinary Inquiry: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Dismissal

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an RAS officer challenging rejection of his resignation by the State as well as an order imposing penalty of removal from service, opining that considering the conduct of the petitioner, the State's actions did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that no vested or automatic right was created in favour of the employee merely by filing a resignation, especially when the State was contemplating initiation of departmental proceedings against the employee. “…resignation tendered by a public servant cannot be construed as an absolute right to exit service, particularly when departmental proceedings for serious misconduct are under contemplation or actively pending. The acceptance of resignation remains within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, who after weighing the larger public interest, the gravity of allegations and the necessity to uphold administrative discipline against the employee's convenience.”It was the case of the petitioner that a resignation was submitted by him in November 1995. However, based on a communication received by him in June 1996, his resignation was not accepted on the ground of his willful absenteeism since February 1995. Further, it was communicated that an inquiry was contemplated against him. This inquiry resulted in imposition of the penalty of removal of service which was challenged before the Court, along with the rejection of his resignation. The petitioner also argued that the reason behind rejection of his resignation application, as well as issuance of charge sheet was owing to then Chief Minister's annoyance with him. In relation to his absenteeism, the petitioner submitted that since he had applied for resignation, he was under a bona fide belief that the same would be accepted. Hence, he did not join the service. On the contrary, the State argued that firstly, submission of resignation did not confer any right on the petitioner. Further, it was highlighted that after his resignation was rejected, an intimation was sent and he was directed to join the duty immediately which was also not adhered to by the petitioner. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted certain facts. The petitioner was absent from February 1995. Inquiry in this regard was initiated in December 1995. Anticipating strict action, resignation was submitted by the petitioner in November 1995. However, this resignation was rejected and the petitioner was directed to resume duty, which he did not do. In this background, the Court held, “…learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any provision which confers absolute right upon the petitioner to claim acceptance of resignation tendered by him despite there being inquiry under contemplation against him. Although, there is provision of resignation under the Rule, yet its acceptance depends upon the circumstances as well as on discretion of the competent authority.”The Court held that where the petitioner's conduct was under scrutiny, and the State was contemplating inquiry, no mistake was made in rejecting his resignation application. Further, it was highlighted that no reasonable justification was provided by the petitioner for his absenteeism even before applying for resignation, or even after receiving the intimation about rejection of the resignation application coupled with directions for rejoining service. “Despite being duly intimated to resume duties forthwith, the petitioner persisted in his absenteeism without justifiable cause, thereby flouting the principles of discipline and subordination which are inherent and indispensable part of public service. Such conduct not only undermines the efficiency and integrity of the service but also reflects a blatant disregard for command of higher authority.”It was held that petitioner's absence from duty constituted willful and deliberate misconduct of grave nature that warranted imposition of penalty of removal from service, and there was no procedural error or violation of principles of natural justice in the actions of the State. Lastly, in relation to the allegations by the petitioner against the then Chief Minister, the Court mentioned that such allegations of bias and mala fide could be entertained only when the concerned party was impleaded, which was not done in the present matter. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Title: Mahaveer Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 54Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ankul Gupta for Mr. Babu Lal GuptaCounsel for Respondents: Mr. Archit Bohra AGC, with Mr. Rahul VermaClick Here To Read/Download Order

Public Servant Can't Exit Service By Resignation To Frustrate Disciplinary Inquiry: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Dismissal

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Public Servant Can't Exit Service By Resignation To Frustrate Disciplinary Inquiry: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Dismissal

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers