Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Ratnesh Kumar vs N.F.Railway on 12 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/000190/2025
Reserved on: 24.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 12.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sri Ratnesh Kumar,
S/o Sri Sohan Ray,
School Teacher,
District Samastipur, Block Vidyapatinagar,
School UMS Bazidpur, Bihar, Pin - 848503.
...Applicant
By Advocates: Mrs. U. Dutta, Mr. M. Chanda, Mr. K. Dutta,
- Versus -
1. The Union of India
Through General Manager,
N.F. Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati, Pin - 781011, Assam.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager(P),
Lumding, N.F. Railway, Lumding,
Assam, Pin - 782447.
3. Asstt. Personnel Officer/II/LMG,
N.F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin - 782447.
4. Sr. Divisional Engineer/C/Lumding,
N.F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin - 782447.
5. Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Digaru Section,
Panbari Station, Kamrup(M), Assam, Pin - 782401.
O.A. No.040/190/2025
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
2
6. Director,
O/o Directorate of Primary Education,
Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Ground Floor, Vikash Bhawan, Patna Secretariat,
Patna - 800015.
7. District Education Officer, Samastipur,
Gudari Bazar, Samastipur, Bihar - 848101.
.....Respondents
By Advocates: Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CGSC
ORDER
PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
The instant O.A. has been preferred by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):
"8.1 Impugned order dated 06.02.2025(Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed so far the applicant is concerned.
8.2 Impugned Order dated 15.05.2025(Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed.
8.3 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2/3 to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the applicant for submission before the Respondent No. 6/7 by 30.06.2025 in terms of Letter dated 28.05.2025 or on any subsequent date, for continuance of service of the applicant in the post of School Teacher, District Samastipur, Block Vidyapatinagar, School UMS Bazidpur, with all consequential benefits.
Or alternatively O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 3 To direct the respondent No. 2 to accept the resignation of the applicant with a further direction upon the respondent no. 6/7 to allow the applicant to continue his service in the post of School Teacher, District Samastipur, Block Vidyapatinagar, School UMS Bazidpur with all consequential benefits. 8.4 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 Trackman IV on 25.04.2023 under Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Digaru Section under Lumding Division, Lumding, N.F. Railway. The applicant while working as Trackman IV under N.F. Railway, being eligible, applied for the post of Primary Teacher under Advertisement No. 22/2024 dated 07.02.2024(Annexure-A/3) issued by Bihar Public Service Commission. Thereafter, he appeared in the written examination held on 20.07.2024. The applicant submitted an application dated 19.09.2024(Annexure-A/5) addressed to the Respondent No. 2 requesting for issuance of 'NOC' for appearing in the said examination under the Advertisement No. 22/2024. The result of the examination was published on 15.11.2024(Annexure- A/6), and applicant was shortlisted for document verification. Applicant appeared for counselling and document verification on the scheduled date i.e. 21.01.2025. Vide Order O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 4 dated 06.02.2025(Annexure-A/1), request for 'NOC' was not accorded by competent authority to applicant to appear in all stages of examination for the post of BPSC Teacher applied against Advertisement No. 22/2024. Finding no alternative, applicant submitted Application dated 18.03.2025(Annexure- A/8) to accept resignation with immediate effect. However, the respondent No. 3 vide impugned Letter dated 15.05.2025(Annexure-A/2) conveyed that applicant's prayer for resignation has been regretted to by the Competent Authority. In the meantime, the Appointment Order dated 10.05.2025(Annexure-A/9) was issued to the applicant directing him to join in the post of School Teacher, District Samastipur, Block Vidyapatinagar, School UMS Bazidpur between 15.05.2025 and 31.05.2025. In the compelling circumstances, finding no alternative, he joined in the post of School Teacher, District Samastipur, Block Vidyapatinagar, School UMS Bazidpur on 30.05.2025 and since then, has been continuing his service. However, he has been communicated that if he fails to submit NOC/resignation acceptance letter from railways within 30.06.2025, then his appointment in the O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 5 post of School Teacher, District Samastipur, Block Vidyapatinagar, School UMS Bazidpur will be cancelled.
3. Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents - Railways had arbitrarily and without application of mind, rejected applicant's prayer for resignation by cryptic order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure-A/2). Pursuant to being declared successful in the recruitment process for the post of School Teacher, the applicant had no option but to join the post of School Teacher, District Samastipur on 30.05.2025 with a condition to submit NOC/resignation acceptance letter from railways within a month, failing which, his candidature will be cancelled. However, the applicant has been continuing in his present post owing to passing of status-quo order by this Tribunal on 26.06.2025.
Learned counsel, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents-Railways to accept applicant's resignation.
4. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that the applicant failed to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from his parent division (Lumding O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 6 Division) prior to applying or appearing in the examination. This is a mandatory procedural requirement under extant Railway Board instructions. Prior to the declaration of result on 15.11.2024, applicant submitted an application for 'NOC' on 19.09.2024(Annexure-A/5) and the same was not accorded to by the competent authority due to operational exigencies and acute staff shortage in the Lumding Division. Thereafter, applicant submitted his resignation on 18.03.2025 (Annexure- A/8) citing personal grounds. 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 O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 7 and may be declined, when it adversely affects public service delivery or jeopardizes safety.
5. In reply to that, applicant, in his rejoinder, stated that Master Circular No. 21/2019 deals with "Resignation from Railway Service" and not with 'NOC'. As per the applicant, he 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.
O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 8
6. We have heard Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. CGSC for the official respondents.
7. Railway authorities did not take any action on application submitted by the applicant on 19.09.2024(Annexure-A/5) for 'NOC' after qualifying written examination compelling the applicant to file his resignation letter on 18.03.2025(Annexure-A/8). The applicant was directed to join as 'Teacher' between 15.05.2025 and 31.05.2025, and the Railways had already rejected his prayer for resignation on 15.05.2025 by a cryptic order. Having no other option left, applicant joined the post on 30.05.2025, and he was allowed to join subject to production of 'NOC' within 30 days. In the rejection order, the respondents have not made any reference to the fact that application for 'NOC' was made after appearing in the examination, while rejecting the said representation. The respondent authorities now cannot go back and assert that the applicant had appeared in the Examination without obtaining NOC.
O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 9
8. 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:-
(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."
O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 10 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.
9. 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 treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible.
10. Admittedly, impugned orders dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure-A/1) and 15.05.2025(Annexure-A/2) were passed rejecting the prayers for 'NOC' and resignation of the applicant respectively in a cryptic manner without giving any reason.
O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 11
11. 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 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 O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 12 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)
12. In case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008) 15 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - 'reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless'
13. 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 due to acute shortage of staff. This ground has already been considered by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 and O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 13 the Hon'ble High Court had already held that shortage of staff is not a valid ground to withheld resignation of an employee.
14. In Civil Appeal Nos. 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., the 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."
15. However, it is an admitted position that applicant had applied for 'NOC' after appearing in the examination, therefore, his resignation cannot be treated as technical resignation and benefits of the past service will not be admissible in terms of DoP&T's 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.
O.A. No.040/190/2025 Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR 14
16. In view of the above, the impugned Communications dated 06.02.2025 & 15.05.2025 (Annexures- A/1 & A/2) qua applicant are quashed and set aside.
17. Respondents are directed to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 18.03.2025 (Annexure-A/8) forthwith without any benefits of past service, with a further direction upon the respondent No. 6 to accept the formal acceptance of resignation to be issued by the Railways.
18. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents for onward transmission and to ensure compliance.
19. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, O.A. is partly allowed.
20. Pending M.A.(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
21. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SK/
O.A. No.040/190/2025
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR