Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the case of P. Kasilingam V. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

"It may be conceded that it is open to a servant to make his resignation operative from a future date and to withdraw such resignation before its acceptance. The question as to when a Government servant's resignation becomes effect came up for consideration by this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India , (1968) 3 SCR 857; ( AIR 1969 SC, 180) . It was held that the services of a Government servant normally stand terminated form the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, unless there is any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of services to the contrary. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply to the case."

B] In Raj Kumar v. Union of India; (1968) 3 SCR 857, an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service tendered resignation and addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan on 30.08.1964 that it may be forwarded to the Government of India with remarks of the State Government. The State Government recommended that the resignation be accepted and on 31.10.1964 the Government of India requested the Chief Secretary to the State Government "to intimate the date on which the appellant was relieved of his duties so that a formal notification could be issued in that behalf". Before the date could be intimated and formal notification could be issued, the officer withdrew his resignation by letter dated 27.11.1964. On 29.03.1965 an order accepting his resignation was issued. The challenge raised by the officer was rejected and the High Court held that the resignation became effective on the date the Government of India had accepted it. While dismissing the appeal, a Bench of three Judges of this Court observed:--

F) In Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal9 a permanent officer in the bank sent a letter of resignation on 21.01.1986 in terms of Regulation 20 of PNB (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979, which was to become effective on 30.06.1986. By communication dated 07.02.1986, he was informed that his resignation was accepted with immediate effect. The resignation was withdrawn by the officer on 15.04.1986. The issue therefore arose in the context of said Regulation 20, whether the officer could withdraw the resignation. Regulation 20 was as under:

16. The submission that Clause 2 of Regulation 20 and its proviso were intended only to safeguard the bank's interest and as such the bank could accept the resignation before the date when it was to come into effect was rejected by this Court in following terms:

7. Dr. Anand Prakash emphasises that as clause (2) and its proviso are intended only to safeguard the bank's interests they should be interpreted on the lines suggested by him. We are of the opinion that clause (2) of the regulation and its proviso are intended not only for the protection of the bank but also for the benefit of the employee. It is common knowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers in this decision and even in a case where he has taken a firm decision to resign, he may not be ready to go out immediately. In most cases he would need a period of adjustment and hence like to defer the actual date of relief from duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to have time to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the resigning employee. Clause (2) is carefully worded keeping both these requirements in mind. It gives the employee a period of adjustment and rethinking. It also enables the bank to have some time to arrange its affairs, with the liberty, in an appropriate case, to accept the resignation of an employee even without the requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under the terms of the regulation. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that in the present case the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on or about 21-4-1986 or on 30-6-1986 and that the bank could not have "accepted" that resignation on any earlier date. The letter dated 7-2-1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction.