Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved On - 09.10.2025
Delivered On - 07.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2358 of 2024 (S/S)
Anita Pandey
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Ms. Anita Pandey, petitioner in person.
Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, Addl. CSC for the State.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this petition is made to the communication dated 31.10.2023 of the respondent no. 4/Manager, HR (Human Resources), State Infrastructure & Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited ("SIIDCUL"), by which the petitioner was informed that her resignation is approved by the Management as per request. The petitioner also seeks directions that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw her resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 and allow the petitioner to join on the post of Receptionist.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Receptionist in SIIDCUL on 27.09.2016; she worked on the position; she was given additional work on multiple occasions. The events thereafter, which are necessary for adjudication of the petition are as follows:-
(i) On 23.03.2023, the Managing Director, SIIDCUL ("MD, SIIDCUL") attached the petitioner in the 2 Directorate of Industries at Dehradun. The petitioner was further given additional charge.
(ii) On 10.10.2023, due to certain family problems and in view to look after her child, the petitioner tendered her notice of resignation to the MD SIIDCUL.
(iii) On 31.10.2023, according to the petitioner, in most illegal and arbitrary manner, the Manager (HR), SIIDCUL, who is not the appointing authority, accepted the notice of resignation, just within 20 days of its submission.
(iv) It is the case of the petitioner that the Uttarakhand Government Servants Resignation Rules, 2003 ("Resignation Rules, 2003") provides that the notice of resignation should be for three months and Rule 5 of it provides that the resignation shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and a formal order is issued thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that the resignation could not have been accepted within three months from the date of notice.
(v) The petitioner submitted an application on 09.12.2023 to the MD, SIIDCUL requesting for withdrawal of her resignation notice dated 10.10.2023. However, no action was taken.
3
(vi) The petitioner filed multiple representations. The State of Uttarakhand also asked the MD, SIIDCUL to take action on the withdrawal letter of the petitioner.
(vii) On 24.06.2024, the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand conveyed the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Vigilance to the MD, SIIDCUL claiming that unless formal order is issued, the resignation cannot be termed to be accepted. Therefore, the application dated 09.12.2023 requires to be decided, by which the petitioner has requested for withdrawal of her notice of resignation. This communication is Annexure 21 to the writ petition. It also records that, in fact, the Rules promulgated by the Personnel Department do not apply to the Boards, Corporations, Commissions and other autonomous institutions unless the Rules are adopted by such Board, Corporation, Commission & autonomous institutions.
3. On behalf of the SIIDCUL, counter affidavit has been filed. According to the SIIDCUL, it is a Government of Uttarakhand enterprises, which is incorporated under the Companies Act. It the case of the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 that the resignation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2023 was duly accepted by the competent authority i.e. Managing Director, SIIDCUL; the communication of acceptance was made by the Manager (HR), SIIDCUL; The HR 4 Department is designated for issuing communication of behalf of the higher authorities; there is no requirement under the law that the appointing authority must communicate such acceptance. Referring to Resignation Rules, 2023, in para 20 of the counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 state that petitioner's interpretation is selective; Rule 5 of Resignation Rules, 2023 permits appointing authority to accept the resignation letter with shorter notice; the petitioner's reference on three months period is misplaced; Rule 5 of the Resignation Rules, 2003 provides rejection of resignation only under certain limited conditions, which do not exist in the present case.
4. Further pleadings have also been filed by the parties. Rejoinder affidavit dated 17.05.2025 has been filed by the petitioner. Along with it, she has enclosed State Infrastructure and Industrial Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited Service Regulations, 2015 ("the Service Regulations, 2015"), which are promulgated under the Article of Association of SIIDCUL. These Service Regulations, 2015 requires a little elaboration, but before that it may be noted that in para 7 of her rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner writes that she tendered her notice of resignation when she was working under the authority of Joint Director of Department of Industries. In fact, impliedly, what the petitioner wants to submit is that she is governed by Resignation Rules, 2003.
5. Regulation 26 of Service Regulations, 2015 requires that the SIIDCUL employee shall get all the leaves as are admissible to Government employees. Similarly, as per Regulation 27 of Service Regulations, 2015, the disciplinary and conduct rules of Uttarakhand 5 Government shall be applicable to the members of SIIDCUL, subject to the decision of the Government/Board. According to Regulation 28 of the Service Regulations, 2015, the age of retirement shall be same as is fixed for State Government employees. Regulation 32 of Service Regulations, 2015 also makes applicable the Government Rules/orders under various circumstances with regard to compassionate appointment, etc.
6. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner on 18.07.2025 and along with it, an office order dated 24.02.2023 of the SIIDCUL passed by the MD, SIIDCUL has been enclosed, which records that all the proceedings in the SIIDCUL from 01.03.2023 shall be conducted through e-office, therefore, email and digital signature be obtained prior to that and training may be secured.
7. The respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 24.09.2025. It gives details as to how SIIDCUL functions. According to the additional counter affidavit, the Service Regulations, 2015 govern appointments, conditions of service, resignation, retirement and disciplinary control of SIIDCUL employees; these Regulations are corporate in character, not statutory, and they derive legitimacy from the Articles rather than from the constitutional power of the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. With regard to digital signature, etc., the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 have stated in paragraphs 22 to 26 of the supplementary counter affidavit.
8. Heard the petitioner in person as well as the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
6
9. The petitioner has appeared in person. According to her, her resignation is governed by Resignation Rules, 2003; the resignation notice is for three months, but prior to it, it has been accepted within thirty days. According to her, her resignation has not been yet accepted, therefore, her withdrawal application needs to be allowed and she should be permitted to join her services. She raised the following arguments in her submissions:-
(i) The petitioner was appointed by MD, SIIDCUL, whereas the impugned communication dated 31.10.2023, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, has been issued by the respondent no.
4/the Manager (HR), SIIDCUL; he is not the competent authority to accept the resignation.
(ii) Rule 5 of Resignation Rules, 2003 requires that after acceptance of resignation, a formal order is to be issued, which is not issued in the instant matter.
(iii) The Government of Uttarakhand has also directed the MD, SIIDCUL to take decision on withdrawal application of the petitioner, but it has yet not been acted upon.
(iv) The MD, SIIDCUL by office order dated 24.02.2023 had directed that for e-office, digital signature may be obtained, which means even in the office notings, digital signatures are to be appended. 7
10. Referring to the e-office working process of higher authorities, which has been enclosed with her supplementary affidavit dated 30.07.2025, the petitioner submits that even on e- office, after approving the draft, one has to sign it. This printout is page no. 301, Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.07.2025.
11. The petitioner in person submits that her resignation has not been accepted by the competent authority and no formal order of acceptance has been passed, therefore, till date the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner is not acted upon; now on 09.12.2023, the petitioner has already requested for withdrawal of resignation notice; it needs to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be permitted to join her duties as Receptionist.
12. In support of her contentions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down in the cases of Mahadeo and Ors. V. Sovan Devi and Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 807 and State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, (2023) 7 SCC 282.
13. In the case of Mahadeo (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the notings on the file cannot be treated as a decision of the authority. Even if the competent authority records opinion in the file, on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the competent authority. In para 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
17. This Court in Municipal Committee, Barwala v. Jai Narayan & Co. [Municipal Committee, Barwala v. Jai Narayan & Co., (2023) 14 SCC 786 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 376] held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and 8 nothing more. It merely represents expression of an opinion by the particular individual. It was held as under : (SCC paras 16-17) "16. This Court in a judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish [State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 325 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 542 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 410] held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. It was held as under : (SCC p. 678, para 24) '24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. (See State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh [State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 38 : AIR 1961 SC 493] , Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 11 : AIR 1963 SC 395] , State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar [State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar, (1987) 3 SCC 34 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 442] , Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan [Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan, (1993) 2 SCC 84] , Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA [Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180] and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 707] .)' 9
17. Thus, the letter seeking approval of the State Government by the Deputy Commissioner is not the approval granted by him, which could be enforced by the plaintiff in the court of law."
14. In the case of Ajay Kumar Sood (supra), on a different context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and, in fact, directed the courts and tribunals to upload the judgments and order, which are signed using digital signature. In para 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"22. On the note of accessibility, the importance of making judgments accessible to persons from all sections of society, especially persons with disability needs emphasis. All judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them. On the same note, courts and tribunals must also ensure that the version of the judgments and orders uploaded is accessible and signed using digital signatures. They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens."
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 had initially argued that Rule 5 of the Resignation Rules, 2003 is in two parts; one is acceptance by the appointing authority and the second is a formal order of acceptance. He submits that the acceptance by the appointing authority is essential and mandatory before the resignation is termed to have been accepted, but he would submit that issuance of formal order is not mandatory. On the subsequent stage, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits that the petitioner is not a Government servant; SIIDCUL is 10 an entity under the Companies Act, which is governed through Articles of Association and the Resignation Rules, 2003 are not applicable to the SIIDCUL employees. He submits that the SIIDCUL has framed Service Regulations, 2015. Therefore, it is argued that Resignation Rules, 2003 are not applicable in the instant case. Learned counsel submits that the MD, SIIDCUL has accepted the resignation and this decision was communicated by the respondent no. 4/Manager (HR), SIIDCUL, which makes the acceptance complete.
16. In fact, admittedly, the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner was processed through e-office software. The printouts of those e-office software has been filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 as Annexure 2 to their counter affidavit. It is admitted that the MD, SIIDCUL Rohit Meena has not digitally singed or e-signed the office note. As per the printouts of the e-office software, before the name of Rohit Meena, MD, SIIDCUL, "OK as proposed" is written. It is the case of the petitioner that the MD, SIIDCUL was required to append his digital signature on any noting, which he has made so as to authenticate, because, it is argued by the petitioner in person that unless the note is digitally signed or e- signed, it is not authenticated.
17. On this aspect, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 initially argued that the noting with regard to resignation notice of the petitioner has been initiated, which was initially digitally signed; the MD, SIIDCUL has accepted the proposal. He admits that the MD, SIIDCUL has not digitally signed the noting. He also admits that the MD, SIIDCUL has not placed his e-signature on the noting. 11 What is argued that Parichay e-office software, which is working in the SIIDCUL is a secured software; it is password secured with OTP, therefore, it is authenticated. This is, in fact, what is pleaded in paras 22 to 24 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 24.09.2025 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4. These paras are as follows:-
"22. That Section 3A(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 declares that an electronic signature or electronic authentication technique shall be considered legally valid if it is reliable and fulfils the following essential conditions: (a) it is unique to the subscriber; (b) it is capable of identifying the subscriber; (c) it is created under the exclusive control of the subscriber; and (d) it is linked to the electronic record in such a manner that alteration of the record invalidates the authentication.
23. That the Parichay system, as described in the User Login Manual, provides for authentication through multiple modes, namely password-based login with OTP verification, password-less login using registered mobile/email OTP, and multi-factor authentication through Tap Authentication and Token Authentication. Each of these methods generates a unique and time-sensitive credential tied to the subscriber's registered account and device.
24. That the operation of the Parichay login process satisfies the fourfold test prescribed in Section 3A(1). The OTP or token generated is unique to the subscriber for that session; the subscriber is identified through pre-verified credentials such as registered mobile number or email address; the credential is under the exclusive control of the subscriber because it is accessible only through their device or authenticator app; and the system automatically invalidates the process if the record is altered or the credential is misused."
18. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 has placed reliance in the principle of law as laid down in the cases of Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director and 12 others, (1989) 3 SCC 448, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 51 and North Zone Cultural Centre and another v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, (2003) 5 SCC 455.
19. In the case of Pyare Lal Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that "There is no provision in the Articles of Association or the regulations of the company giving same protection to the employees of the company as is given to the civil servants under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. An employee of the company cannot, therefore, claim that he cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed".
20. In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 5, observed as follows:-
"5. Our attention was invited to a judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika [AIR 1966 SC 1313] in which it was held that an order of dismissal passed by an authority and kept on its file without communicating it to the officer concerned or otherwise publishing it did not take effect as from the date on which the order was actually written out by the said authority; such an order could only be effective after it was communicated to the officer concerned or was otherwise published. The principle of that case has no application here. Termination of employment by order passed by the Government does not become effective until the order is intimated to the employee. But where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not 13 thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted. In the present case the resignation was accepted within a short time after it was received by the Government of India. Apparently the State of Rajasthan did not immediately implement the order, and relieve the appellant of his duties, but the appellant cannot profit by the delay in intimating acceptance or in relieving him of his duties."
21. In the case of North Zone Cultural Centre (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the principle of law as laid down in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) held that "it is clear that non- communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided there is in fact an acceptance before the withdrawal".
22. Basically, the issue involved is quite short, though it has been taken on different directions. The question is as to whether the resignation that is given by the petitioner on 10.10.2023 has been accepted by the competent authority and further has this order been formally communicated or a formal order has been issued?
23. In so far as Resignation Rules, 2003 are concerned, although initially the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 also argued on these Rules, but subsequently, it is argued that the Resignation Rules, 2003 are not applicable because the SIIDCUL employee is not a Government servant; it is incorporated under the Companies Act under an Article of Association, under which Service Regulations Rules, 2015 are promulgated. This is not disputed.
24. In fact, at subsequent stage, the Service Regulations, 2015 have been placed on record by the petitioner by her rejoinder 14 affidavit dated 17.05.2025. In view of the SIIDCUL being incorporated under the Companies Act, it has an Article of Association, which is enclosed by respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 along with their supplementary counter affidavit, as Annexure SCA-1. Service Regulations, 2015 have been filed by both the parties. In such a situation, unless Service Regulations, 2015 make a provision that Resignation Rules, 2003 shall be applicable to the employees of the SIIDCUL, it shall not be automatically applicable to the SIIDCUL employees.
25. Service Rules, 2015 do not make applicability of Resignation Rules, 2003 on the employees of the SIIDCUL, but it makes applicable multiple other Government Rules on the SIIDCUL, like Disciplinary and Punishment Rules, Rules relating to compassionate appointment, Retirement Rules, etc. Therefore, as such it cannot be said that the Resignation Rules, 2003 are applicable on the petitioner. The case of the petitioner has to be decided in the light of Service Regulation, 2015.
26. It is not disputed that the resignation has to be accepted by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that, first and foremost, a resignation notice has to be accepted before it becomes effective. Whether formal order needs to be issued thereafter or it may be communicated in any other manner, in the instant case, it is disputed between the parties.
27. In its supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, in para 6, write that the resignation is governed by Service Regulations, 2015. But, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 cold not show any provision under Service Regulations, 2015 relating to resignation and its acceptance. The 15 arguments, thereafter, was raised around the authenticity of the notings on e-office software.
28. The action on the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 was done electronically. The provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("the Act") need to be seen in this context. Section 3, 3A, 4 & 5 of the Act are as follows:-
"3. Authentication of electronic records.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section any subscriber may authenticate an electronic record by affixing his digital signature.
(2) The authentication of the electronic record shall be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system and hash function which envelop and transform the initial electronic record into another electronic record.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "hash function"
means an algorithm mapping or translation of one sequence of bits into another, generally smaller, set known as "hash result" such that an electronic record yields the same hash result every time the algorithm is executed with the same electronic record as its input making it computationally infeasible-
(a) to derive or reconstruct the original electronic record from the hash result produced by the algorithm; (b) that two electronic records can produce the same hash result using the algorithm. (3) Any person by the use of a public key of the subscriber can verify the electronic record. (4) The private key and the public key are unique to the subscriber and constitute a functioning key pair.
3A. Electronic signature.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a subscriber may authenticate any electronic record by such electronic signature or electronic authentication technique which--
(a) is considered reliable; and
(b) may be specified in the Second Schedule.
(2) For the purposes of this section any electronic signature or electronic authentication technique shall be considered reliable if--
(a) the signature creation data or the authentication data are, within the context in which they are used, linked to the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and to no other person;
(b) the signature creation data or the authentication data were, at the time of signing, under the control of the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and of no other person;
(c) any alteration to the electronic signature made after affixing such signature is detectable;
16
(d) any alteration to the information made after its authentication by electronic signature is detectable; and
(e) it fulfils such other conditions which may be prescribed. (3) The Central Government may prescribe the procedure for the purpose of ascertaining whether electronic signature is that of the person by whom it is purported to have been affixed or authenticated. (4) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to or omit any electronic signature or electronic authentication technique and the procedure for affixing such signature from the Second Schedule:
Provided that no electronic signature or authentication technique shall be specified in the Second Schedule unless such signature or technique is reliable.
(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
4. Legal recognition of electronic records.--Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is-
(a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and
(b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.
5. Legal recognition of electronic signatures.--Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be authenticated by affixing the signature or any document shall be signed or bear the signature of any person, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied, if such information or matter is authenticated by means of electronic signature affixed in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "signed", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person, mean affixing of his hand written signature or any mark on any document and the expression "signature" shall be construed accordingly."
29. The information in electronic form is equal to such information, which is required to be maintained in writing. Electronic record is recognized under Section 4 of the Act.
30. Section 5 of the Act deals with electronic signature and if signatures are required on any document, such requirement, according to this Section 5, shall be deemed to have been satisfied, if 17 such information or matter is authenticated by means of electronic signature.
31. Authentication of electronic records is maintained under Section 3 of the Act by affixing digital signature. Section 3A of the Act speaks of authentication by virtue of electronic signature or electronic authentication technique, which is reliable and which may be specified in the Second Schedule. In the Second Schedule, the rules have been promulgated, namely, Electronic Signature or Electronic Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015 ("Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015").
32. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 admits that the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner has been processed on e-office and the text that has been written in the e- office note above the name of the MD, SIIDCUL, has not been either digitally signed under Section 3 of the Act nor it has been signed under Section 3-A of the Act, and it is also not covered under the Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015. The argument is on other aspect of it. It is with regard to the authenticity of the software. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in para 22 to 24 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the working of this e- office software has been stated. But, in view of the Act, the software authenticity may not authenticate the electronic record. The electronic record can be authenticated only in accordance with Section 3, 3-A, 4 & 5 of the Act. It is also admitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 that it is not so done.
18
33. At one stage, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits that the electronic authentication technique, if it is considered reliable, authenticates the electronic record and it should not be necessarily in accordance with the Scheduled Rules. He would submit that Section 3A(1) of the Act is in two parts and if Section 3A(1)(a) of the Act, which deals with reliability, is settled, it need not be in accordance with any specification as given under Section 3A(1)
(b) of the Act.
34. At the cost of repetition, this Court reproduces Section 3A(1) and (4) as under:-
3A. Electronic signature.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a subscriber may authenticate any electronic record by such electronic signature or electronic authentication technique which--
(a) is considered reliable; and
(b) may be specified in the Second Schedule.
......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... (4) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to or omit any electronic signature or electronic authentication technique and the procedure for affixing such signature from the Second Schedule:
......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................"
35. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that as per Section 3A(4), the electronic authentication technique may be specified by the Central Government. Section 3A(1) (a) makes it abundantly clear that electronic authentication technique may authenticate any electronic record if such technique "is considered reliable" and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act makes specific that such technique "may be specified in the second Schedule".
19
36. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits that if the electronic authentication technique is reliable, it would be enough for authenticating the electronic record in view of Section 3A (1) (a) of the Act. He submits that in that situation, the Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015 shall have no application. This argument has less merit for acceptance. It is true that Section 3A(1)(a) of the Act has two sub-clauses, namely, (a) and
(b). One could have read Section 3A(1) (a) in isolation to Section 3A(1)(b) had there been no rules specified under the Act. But, since under Section 3A of the Act, the Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015 has already been enacted, for the purposes of the decision in the instant case, Section 3A(1)(a) and Section 3A(1)(b) shall be read together. Therefore, the electronic record shall be deemed to be authenticated only when it is authenticated by the authentication technique, which is reliable and specified in the second Schedule.
37. The Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015 are framed under Section 3A. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 that the authentication is not in accordance with the Authentication Technique and Procedure Rules, 2015. Merely, based on the argument that the software is secured, it cannot substitute the authentication, which is required to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
38. On the e-office software, as per the direction of the MD, SIIDCUL dated 24.02.2023, digital signatures were to be appended, but, as stated, in the e-office software, on which the resignation notice of the petitioner dated 10.10.2023 was process, above the 20 name of Rohit Meena, MD, SIIDCUL, digital signature is not appended. Admittedly, it was not authenticated as per the provisions of the Act.
39. This is interesting to note that Rohit Meena, MD, SIIDCUL has not come up to say before this Court that he has made his noting on e-office software, though he has neither digitally signed it nor e-signed it. In absence of authentication of the text on e-office software above the name of Rohit Meena, it cannot be said that the text is electronically authenticated. There is no physical record, on which the MD, SIIDCUL has accepted the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 was never accepted by the MD, SIIDCUL, the appointing authority.
40. The Resignation Rules, 2003 provides for the procedure for acceptance and communication of the resignation. According to Rule 5 of the Resignation Rules, 2003, the resignation of a Government servant shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority and a formal order is issued thereof. But, as stated, Resignation Rules, 2003 are not as such applicable to the petitioner. Service Rules, 2015 has no such provision of issuance of a formal order.
41. During the course of hearing, the petitioner in person has also placed for perusal of the Court a dismissal order dated 12.10.2023 of one Mr. Vikas Kumar, which is quite in detail. It is taken on record. The last paragraph of it records as follows:- 21
"NOW THEEFORE, I, Rohit Meena, Managing Director, SIIDCUL, being the appointing authority, in exercise of the powers conferred by the relevant rules, do hereby award punishment of dismissal from service to Mr. Vikas Kumar, Driver, SIIDCUL, with immediate effect", and it is hereby ordered that Mr. Vikas Kumar, S/o Surendra Lal, be and is hereby dismissed from service from SIIDCUL with immediate effect. Dues if any against his will be adjusted against his pending payments."
42. This dismissal order is of 12.10.2023. A formal order of dismissal was passed by the MD, SIIDCUL. Does it mean that SIIDCUL is also required to issue a formal order of any decision taken by the appointing authority?
43. As stated, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 could not show any provision in the Service Regulations, 2015 regarding acceptance of resignation. A formal order of dismissal was passed by the MD, SIIDCUL on 12.10.2023 in the case of Vikas Kumar. It means, a formal order needs to be drawn by the authority accepting the resignation for communicating to the concerned employee as well as other wings of the Department. In the instant case, it is also not done.
44. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that in the instant case, even the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner has not been accepted by the MD, SIIDCUL, the appointing authority and no formal order has been issued. Therefore, the Court concludes that the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner has not been accepted in the eyes of law. Even today, it has not been accepted. On 09.12.2023, the petitioner had filed his application for withdrawal of the notice of resignation.
22
45. This Court has already held that the resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner has not been accepted by the competent authority in the eyes of law. It is settled principle of law that a resignation may be withdrawn by the employee before it is accepted. In the case of S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2546, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up this principle and in para 3 observed as follows:-
"3. The short facts necessary for resolution of this dispute revolve around the invariable question that arises in disputes involving withdrawal of the resignation letter 1, i.e. whether the employee has withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the employer or not. Having examined the matter in detail, we have arrived at the conclusion that resignation was in fact withdrawn before its acceptance. We have thus allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the appellant. Further, to balance equities, we ordered the salary payable for the period that the appellant has not worked to be restricted to 50% of the salary payable for the said period."
46. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that since before resignation could be accepted, the employee had expressed his right to withdraw, the resignation has not become effective and the employer was directed to reinstate the employee in service and provided that on reinstatement, from the date the employee was relieved from service to his reinstatement, he would get 50% of the salary.
47. In the instant case, the resignation has yet not been accepted. The petitioner has already withdrawn her resignation notice 1 Resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, is an established principle of law; Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 161; Air India Express Limited v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129; Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 314; Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228; Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 23 on 09.12.2023. Therefore, by exercising her right to withdraw the resignation, Annexure No. 13, the resignation stood withdrawn. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.
48. The writ petition is allowed.
49. The impugned communication dated 31.10.2023 is set aside. The resignation notice dated 10.10.2023 of the petitioner has yet not been accepted. The petitioner has already withdrawn it by letter dated 09.12.2023, therefore, the resignation notice stood withdrawn.
50. The respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within thirty days from the date of this judgment. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to receive 50% of the salary from the date she is said to have been relieved from service pursuant to the impugned communication dated 31.10.2023 to the date of her reinstatement. The amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The period from the date she is said to have been relieved from service pursuant to the impugned communication dated 31.10.2023 to the date of her reinstatement shall, however, be counted for pensionary benefits, if any.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 07.11.2025 Avneet/