Chhattisgarh High Court: Corporation’s Appeal Dismissed, Employee’s Resignation Deemed Invalid Due to Procedural Lapses
In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, dismissed an appeal by the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation and upheld a Single Judge’s decision that declared the resignation of Shailendra Kumar Khamparia, a Deputy Manager, as invalid. The court ruled that Khamparia’s resignation was improperly accepted due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions, allowing him to withdraw it subsequently. The judgment shifted the responsibility onto the employer to ensure compliance with resignation procedures before accepting it.
Background
Shailendra Kumar Khamparia submitted his resignation via email on March 26, 2016, citing personal reasons. However, his resignation was initially rejected by the corporation because it lacked a specific date and did not include the deposit of three months’ salary, a necessary condition for acceptance. Despite this, the corporation later accepted his incomplete resignation in September 2016. In October of that year, Khamparia requested to withdraw his resignation, but the corporation denied his request, leading to the legal dispute.
Arguments
The corporation argued that once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn, even if the acceptance has not been communicated. They contended that Khamparia’s resignation was effective regardless of the unfulfilled formalities and that they bore no responsibility for his failure to deposit three months’ salary.
Khamparia’s legal team countered by arguing that since his resignation was originally rejected due to non-compliance, the subsequent acceptance was invalid. They pointed out that the resignation was incomplete, as it lacked a specific date and did not fulfill the salary deposit condition, making it improper for the corporation to proceed with acceptance. His request to withdraw the resignation was therefore justified.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that a resignation must meet all prescribed conditions to be validly accepted. In Khamparia’s case, the court found that his resignation was incomplete, as it lacked both a specific date and the required salary deposit. The corporation’s initial rejection was correct; however, their later acceptance was procedurally defective since the conditions remained unmet.
The court ruled that once the resignation was rejected for non-compliance, the onus was on the corporation to ensure that all conditions were fulfilled before proceeding with acceptance. Since Khamparia never submitted a revised resignation with the necessary conditions, the resignation should not have been accepted at all.
Moreover, the court noted that the corporation continued to assign responsibilities to Khamparia even after receiving the incomplete resignation, further indicating that the resignation had not effectively taken place. The court also criticized the corporation for failing to act on Khamparia’s multiple requests to withdraw his resignation. Given that the resignation had not taken effect due to the unfulfilled conditions, the refusal to allow its withdrawal was unjust.
Conclusion
Citing the legal principle established in Rakesh Kumar Bhartiya v. Union of India, which states that an incomplete resignation cannot be acted upon, the court affirmed that Khamparia’s resignation was invalid due to procedural lapses. The High Court dismissed the corporation’s appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision that Khamparia was entitled to withdraw his resignation and continue his employment.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when handling resignations and clarifies the employer’s duty to ensure compliance before proceeding with acceptance.
