A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, dismissed the petition of an Assistant Commandant (AC) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Satyavir Singh, who sought to have his resignation accepted despite ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Court ruled that resignation during an inquiry or investigation is generally not accepted, regardless of whether the officer is suspended.
The case revolves around Satyavir Singh, who had applied for leave on January 30, 2015, which was granted by his superiors for the period from February 2, 2015, to March 13, 2015. On March 9, 2015, Singh informed the authorities that he was suffering from back pain and sought an extension of his leave, supported by a medical certificate. Despite being asked to visit a CRPF hospital for treatment, Singh continued to request further extensions due to his health condition.
By May 28, 2015, the CRPF initiated a preliminary inquiry into Singh’s unauthorized absence from duty. Singh was repeatedly directed to seek treatment at a nearby CRPF hospital, but he claimed that the nearest facility was 300 kilometers away. The inquiry continued as Singh failed to resume his duties or provide adequate medical documentation.
In October 2015, Singh received a show-cause notice for his prolonged absence. He responded by requesting permission to rejoin his duties once he was fit, but his condition did not improve. In November 2015, Singh cited personal reasons for not being able to rejoin and later submitted a formal resignation in November 2016.
While his resignation was being processed, Singh was issued a chargesheet in May 2018, and the inquiry report found that the charges of unauthorized absence were substantiated. Singh then approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the resignation should have been accepted, citing that disciplinary proceedings were unnecessary. They claimed that Singh had been sanctioned leave for 40 days and had faced delays due to health issues. The counsel also pointed out that the resignation was pending approval from the Competent Authority, yet disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
However, the counsel for the respondents, representing the Union of India, argued that Singh had failed to report for duty after being declared fit by a medical officer in November 2015. The respondents also stated that disciplinary proceedings were initiated after the Ministry of Home Affairs returned the resignation proposal, instructing that the appropriate procedure for unauthorized absence be followed.
The Court noted that Singh had been given multiple opportunities to participate in the inquiry but failed to do so. Furthermore, the Court observed that no medical documents were submitted to justify his absence, and his claim about the distance to the CRPF hospital was seen as a fabricated excuse. The Court also highlighted that Singh had chosen to resign instead of reporting for duty after being declared fit.
In its judgment, the Court emphasized that resignation during an ongoing inquiry is generally not accepted, regardless of suspension status. The Court further pointed out that the disciplinary authority had followed the proper procedures, including consulting the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which advised dismissal from service. Ultimately, the Court dismissed Singh’s petition, affirming the disciplinary action taken against him.