Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Sanjib Ghosh vs N.F.Railway on 16 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00250/2025
Date of Order: 16.03.2026
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M G SEWLIKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shri Sanjib Ghosh
S/o Late Dayamay Ghosh
Track Maintainer-IV
Under Sr. Section Engineer/P. Way/NHLG
N.F. Railway, New Haflong
Dist - Dima Hasao, Assam
Pin - 782435
R/o Kandi School Road, P.O./P.S. Kandi
Dist - Murshidabad, West Bengal
Pin - 742137
...Applicant
-AND-
1. The Union of India,
Through General Manager,
N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati-781011
Assam.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (P),
Lumding, N.F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin-782447
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Lumding
N. F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin-782447.
4. Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway
1st Floor, 17, N.S. Road, Fairlie Place
E. Rly. Headquarter, Eastern Railway
West Bengal, Kolkata-700001.
O.A. No/250/2025
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
signed by
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
2
5. Divisional Railway Manager (P)
Munshi Bazar, Asansol
West Bengal - 713301.
---Respondents
Present:
For applicant(s): Sri M. Chanda and
Mrs. U. Dutta
For respondents: Shri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC
ORDER (ORAL)
PER: SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
8.1. Impugned order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure Al) be set aside and quashed so far the applicant is concerned.
8.2 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the technical resignation of the applicant submitted on 27.05.2025/27.05.2025 and release him immediately to join the post of Track Maintainer-IV under Asansol Division in terms of the offer of appointment letter dated 16.05.2025, with all consequential benefits.
8.3 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Track Maintainer IV in Civil Engineering Department on 11.09.2020 (Annexure-A/2) in Pay Matrix Level I and posted under Sr. Section O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 3 Engineer/P-Way/NHLGunder Lumding Division, Lumding N.F. Railway. While working as Track Maintainer IV under N.F Railway, he applied for the post of Trackman IV in Level 1 pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) 01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 (Annexure-A/3). On 02.03.2023, applicant submitted representation through proper channel for issuance of NOC which was received by DRM (P), Lumding on 23.03.2023. He again submitted application on 17.12.2024 for NOC. He appeared in the Computer Based Test followed by Physical Efficiency Test/document verification which was held on 04.11.2024. On being qualified, he was offered appointment to the post of Track Maintainer IV in Civil Engg. Department against CEN RRC No. 01/2019 in Asansol Division vide letter dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure-A/4). However, vide Order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1), his request for NOC was regretted by the competent authority. Finding no alternative, on 27.05.2025 (Annexure A/6), he submitted his resignation letter. His resignation letter was forwarded to the competent authority on the same day on 27.05.2025. As per the appointment letter, the date of acceptance of the appointment and return of the O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 4 duplicate copy enclosed with the offer of appointment was 06.06.2025 which will not be renewed. The Railway authorities rejected his application for NOC on 19.05.2025 (Annexure A/1), with a cryptic order. Since his application for NOC was rejected, finding no alternative, he approached this Tribunal on 25.08.2025.
3. Smt. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure A/1), rejecting applicant's application for NOC in a vague and cryptic manner without even citing any reasons is in gross violation of Para 302 of IREC and Rule 1401 of IREM. Respondents have arbitrarily and without application of mind, rejected applicant's prayer for NOC by cryptic order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1). His appointment as Track Maintainer IV is held up due to rejection of his prayer for resignation. According to the learned counsel, only because of interim order of this Tribunal dated 25.08.2025, one post of Track Maintainer IV under RRB Kolkata is reserved by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway thereby protecting the interest of the applicant. Learned counsel therefore, prays for a O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 5 direction to the respondents-Railways to accept applicant's resignation.
4. Shri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that pursuant to Centralized Employment Notification (CEN) No. 01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 (Annexure-A/3) issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, applicant applied for NOC from the Railway Administration on 14.03.2023 to appear in the said examination. The applicant has not obtained NOC from Division prior to applying or appearing in the examination. This is a mandatory procedural recruitment for public servants intending to participate in outside employment under another government entity. However, vide order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1), competent authority declined to issue NOC to the applicant due to operational exigencies and acute staff shortage in the Lumding-Badarpur Hill Section. Thereafter, applicant submitted his resignation from Railway service on 27.05.2025 (Annexure-A/6), seeking release to join the post under Asansol Division. The post of Track Maintainer IV is a safety category post and the Division is operating with 42% O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 6 vacancies. On such a situation, relieving a frontline safety category staff without replacement would adversely affect train operations and passenger safety.
As per the respondents, denial of NOC and rejection of resignation are consistent with the following statutory and administrative provisions:
Railway Board's Master Circular No. 21/2019, which empowers the competent authority to decline NOC when public interest and service exigencies so warrant;
Rule 302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), Vol. I, which governs the conditions for acceptance or refusal of resignation from service;
Para 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment discretionary authority to withhold resignation based on safety concerns or operational grounds.
As per the respondents, the aforesaid provisions collectively affirm that resignation is not an absolute right of the employee and may be declined when it adversely affects public service delivery or jeopardizes safety.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Master Circular No. 21/2019 deals with "Resignation O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 7 from Railway Service" and not with NOC. As per the applicant, applicant is neither engaged in a time bound project nor he is facing any departmental proceeding. The statutory rules of IREC/IREM postulates for rejection of resignation only in cases, where the conduct of Railway servant is under investigation. As such, there is no impediment on the part of the respondents to accept the resignation of the applicant and spare the applicant for his new assignment.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the settled position of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Jain Vs. National Aviation Co. Of India Ltd (2019) 14 SCC 492 that - to resign is a right of employee who cannot be forced to serve in case he is not willing until and unless there is some stipulation in the Rules and in the terms of appointment or disciplinary proceedings is pending or contemplated which is sought to be avoided by resigning from the services. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal on 29.05.2025 O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 8 in O.A No. 107/2025 in the case of Jagdev Kumar vs Union of India &Ors upheld by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 stating that shortage of staff is no ground for refusal to give NOC and not a valid ground to withhold resignation of an employee.
6. We have heard Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents.
8. Railway authorities have rejected the application submitted by the applicant on 17.12.2024 for NOC after qualifying written examination and compelled the applicant to file his resignation on 27.05.2025 (Annexure-6). The respondent authorities upon considering the application for NOC, have passed a cryptic order and has not made any reference to the fact that application for NOC was made after passing of result of examination, while rejecting the said representation. The respondent authorities now cannot go back and assert that the O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 9 applicant had appeared in the Examination without obtaining NOC.
9. Rule 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. I dated 27.02.1979 itself is very liberal, which says as follows:
"1401. Railway employees may be given 4 opportunities in a year to apply in response to notices of Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies wholly or substantially financed and controlled by Central or State Government except where holding of any such applications is considered justified in the public interest by the competent authority. Applications in response to UPSC advertisement will not be counted against the four opportunities mentioned above.
Note: The authorities should interpret the term 'public interest' strictly subject to the condition that forwarding of application should be the rule rather than the exception. In taking the decision to withhold the application the competent authority has to balance the interest of the state against the necessity of causing hardship to the individual. This discretion should be applied with utmost objectivity and not mechanically. While it is not feasible to lay down the specific exhaustive guidelines for withholding of applications, some of them can be listed illustratively as follows:-
O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 10 (1) The Railway employee is engaged on important time-bound projects and the work would be seriously dislocated if he is relieved.
(ii) A railway employee is under suspension or is facing departmental proceedings/prosecution in a Court.
(iii) A railway employee is applying for a post which is equivalent in status and rank."
It is clear from the facts placed on record that the applicant does not fall in any of the above three conditions in the said Circular.
10. We have also perused OM of the Department of Personnel & Training dated 17.08.2016 regarding Technical Resignation wherein at para 2.1.1, it is stated that - The resignation will be treated as technical resignation if these conditions are met, even if the Government servant has not mentioned the word "Technical" while submitting his resignation. The benefit of past service, if otherwise admissible under rules, may be given in such cases. Resignation in other cases including where competent authority has not allowed the Government servant to forward the application through proper channel will not be O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 11 treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible.
11. Admittedly, impugned order dated 19.05.2025 was passed rejecting the prayer for NOC of the applicant in a cryptic manner without giving any reason.
12. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of the Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 and 33 held as under:
"31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 12 a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].
32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].
33. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008) 15 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 13 that 'reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless'.
14. In the reply, the respondents took the stand that the request of the applicant for resigning from services as Trackman IV was regretted in public interest and acute shortage of staff. This ground has already been considered by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 and Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 18.08.2025 had already held that shortage of staff is not a valid ground to withheld resignation of an employee.
15. In Civil Appeal No. 7822/2011 and 10881/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27491/2017) in the case of Sanjay Jain Vs. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., Hon'ble Apex Court has held that -"To resign is a right of an employee who cannot be forced to serve in case he is not willing until and unless there is some stipulation in the Rules or in the terms of appointment or disciplinary proceedings is pending or contemplated which is sought to be avoided by resigning from the services."
O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 14
16. However, as the applicant has not been able to establish that he applied for NOC before appearing in the examination, his resignation cannot be treated as technical resignation and benefits of the past service will not be admissible in terms of DOPT OM dated 17.08.2016. This case is covered under the category of resignation as the Competent Authority has not allowed the NOC. The decision in Sanjay Jain (Supra) is squarely attracted in this case.
17. In view of the above, the impugned communication No. E/283/III/LM(E) dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) is quashed.
18. Respondents are directed to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 27.05.2025 (Annexure-A/6) forthwith with a further direction upon the respondent No. 4 (Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, West Bengal, Kolkata) to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Track Maintainer IV under Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) O.A. No/250/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 15 No. RRC-01/2019, if he is otherwise eligible, on the basis of such resignation without the benefit of past service.
19. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents for onward transmission and to ensure compliance.
20. O.A. is partly allowed.
21. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
22. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE M G SEWLIKAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PB
O.A. No/250/2025
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
signed by
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY