'Resignation During Pendency Of Inquiry Or Investigation Is Generally Not Accepted', Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while dismissing the Petition of an Army Officer held that resignation during the pendency of inquiry or investigation could generally not be accepted regardless of whether the Petitioner was suspended or not. Observing that being unauthorizedly absent from duty reflect poorly on the overall integrity and operational efficiency of the force, the Bench held that the Petitioner being an AC in the CRPF should have strictly adhered to rules and regulations. Background The Petitioner who occupied the post of AC in the CRPF applied for leave on 30.01.2015 and the same was granted to him by the respondents with effect from 02.02.2015 to 13.03.2015. On 09.03.2015, the Petitioner informed the Respondents that he suffered from back pain and was advised complete rest by doctors, hence seeking an additional four weeks of leave. While informing the Respondents through a Letter, he also produced a Medical Certificate. On 31.03.2015, the Petitioner sent another Letter to the Respondents specifying his medical condition which rendered him unable to resume duties. Therefore, he requested for additional four weeks so that his health could improve rendering him fit to join duties again. In response to the Letters dated 09.03.2015 and 31.03.2015, the Respondents directed the Petitioner to visit the nearest CRPF hospital for treatment. Following this, the Petitioner sent another Letter dated 27.04.2015 to inform the Respondents that his constant back pain did not allow him to resume duties. The Respondents once again asked the Petitioner to seek treatment from a CRPF hospital nearby and the Petitioner claimed that the nearest CRPF hospital was 300 kms away from his place of residence. Subsequently, the Petitioner sent another Letter on 22.05.2015 seeking extension of his rejoining date owing to being unwell. The Respondents issued an Office Order dated 28.05.2015 initiating a preliminary inquiry against the Petitioner for overstaying his leave from 14.03.2015 till 28.05.2015. The inquiry was to be conducted by the Deputy Commandant and the Respondents once again on 28.05.2015 directed the Petitioner to visit the nearest CRPF hospital for treatment. On 11.10.2015, issuing a Show-Cause Notice of the preliminary inquiry to the Petitioner, an explanation in relation to the unauthorized absence was sought from the Petitioners by the Respondents. Replying to the same, the Petitioner sought permission to rejoin his duties on being fit for duties. He also informed the Respondents that he would provide all the medical record to justify his absence from work. Owing to continuous back pain, the Petitioner sent another Letter requesting to be allowed to join after four weeks. Later, on realizing that his condition was not improving, the Petitioner sent a letter dated 14.11.2015 to the respondents, conveying that due to personal reasons, he would not be able to rejoin his duties. As the Respondents asked the Petitioner to resign properly, he submitted a formal resignation on 04.11.2016. While the resignation was being processed, a Chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner and he was served the same on 24.05.2018. Submitting a reply, the Petitioner requested the Respondents to accept his resignation and withdraw the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer filed the Inquiry Report suggesting that the charges of unauthorised absence from duty stood proved against the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the High Court withdrawing the Petition later owing to the dismissal Order dated 24.05.2021 by the respondents against the petitioner. The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to raise all the pleas from the said petition in the appropriate proceedings leading to another Petition before the High Court. Contentions of the Petitioner: The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.2 had approved the recommendation that conducting disciplinary proceedings would not be advisable and the Petitioner's resignation would be accepted, however, later a Chargesheet was issued against the Petitioner which was against the established principle of law. Citing an Order dated 21.03.2017, the Counsel stated that the Petitioner's resignation was sent for approval to the Competent Authority for acceptance. Further, it was stated that the Petitioner was entitled to resign from his duties and the Respondents had no choice but to accept the resignation, especially considering the circumstances of the Petitioner. The Counsel submitted that even though the Respondents did not reject the resignation of the Petitioner, departmental inquiry was initiated against him while also ignoring that he was sanctioned leave for 40 days by the Respondents. Stating that the Respondents hastily concluded the proceedings, the Counsel stated that it caused...

'Resignation During Pendency Of Inquiry Or Investigation Is Generally Not Accepted', Delhi High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags