WITHDRAWAL OF TENDERED RESIGNATION

In DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY Versus B.S. RAWAT - 2026 (8) TMI 912 - Supreme Court, the appellant Delhi Technological University (‘University’ for short) selected the respondent as Assistant Registrar (Legal). The respondent joined in his post on 23.08.2010.

The Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 was amended in the year 2012. Section 22 of the 2009 Act was amended creating the post of a Chairperson to be nominated by the Chancellor to head the Board of Management (‘Management’ for reference).  Section 53 was inserted empowering the Chancellor to issue such directions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of administration. Section 23(2)(ix) vests in the Management the power to appoint persons to teaching, administrative and ministerial posts. The Management delegated all its powers to the Vice Chancellor until the appointment of a Chairman for the Management.

The Vice Chanceller tendered his resignation. The Vice Chancellor was relieved on 23.09.2025 on his resignation. The post of Vice Chancellor was assigned to one Professor Yokesh Singh, Director, Netaji Subash Institute of Technology on 18.09.2015. On 14.07.2016 he was appointed full-time Vice Chancellor.

On 19.05.2016 the respondent tendered his resignation to take effect from 01.09.2016. The intervening period may be treated as notice time and requested to relieve him from 31.05.2016. The respondent was relieved and his final settlements were made, which was duly accepted by the respondent. On 22.09.2016 the respondent sent a letter to the University seeking withdrawal of his resignation, since it has not been accepted and ratified by the Management. On 26.09.2016 the Management accepted the resignation of the respondent. On 03.11.2016 the request for withdrawal of resignation was rejected by the Management.

Being aggrieved against the rejection of his withdrawal of resignation, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 25.05.2016, 31.05.2016 and 03.11.2016. The High Court further directed the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages along with 9% interest per annum. In the appeal filed by the appellant, the Division Bench confirmed the order of Single Bench but denied back wages since the respondent took gainful employment.

The respondent challenged the denial of back wages in the High Court in WP 9039 of 2024.  The respondent after relieved from the DTU, he joined the National Institute of Technology, Calicut as Deputy Registrar with effect from 08.02.2017. Here also the respondent tendered his resignation on 08.11.2018 with the condition seeking leave to withdraw the resignation before the acceptance of his resignation. The same was rejected. Later the respondent submitted an unconditional resignation letter reiterating his request for leave to withdraw the resignation before relieving.

The resignation of the respondent was accepted by the competent authority on 22.11.2018 and the same was communicated to him on 04.12.2018. The respondent was permitted to be relieved on 11.01.2019.  In the meantime, the respondent was selected for the post in East Municipal Corporation. The respondent requested to relieve him on 07.12.2018 was rejected. The respondent contended that the rejection of withdrawal was held illegal and reinstatement with notional continuity of service, without back wages, was directed. Cross appeals were filed by the NITC, Calicut against the appeal filed by the respondent. The Division Bench allowed the appeal so NITC entirety on 01.12.2020. The Court set aside the appeal filed by the respondent for the back wages and also for reinstatement. Against this order the respondent filed the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The DTU submitted the following before the Supreme Court-

• the Chancellor of DTU was the competent authority to appoint the Vice-Chancellor who had been assigned the additional charge.
• the respondent, having tendered his resignation and having requested that the notice period be waived, cannot now turn around and contend that his resignation was not accepted by the competent authority.
• the resignation was accepted by the acting Vice-Chancellor and the same was duly ratified by Management.
• Therefore the reinstatement order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.

The respondent submitted the following before the High Court-

• his resignation was not approved by the competent authority and the question of its ratification by the Management does not arise.
• there is no document on record to show that resignation has ever been accepted.
• The High Court rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent.
• The respondent is entitled to back wages.
• NITC erred in relieving him before the notice period.

The Supreme Court heard the contents of the parties to these appeals. The Supreme Court decided the following questions to be answered in this case-

• Whether the acceptance of resignation of respondent, by an officer holding additional charge of Vice-Chancellor and admittedly not the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the 2009 Act, stood validated by the subsequent ratification of the Management?
• Whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala was justified in upholding the acceptance of resignation of the respondent and the rejection of his request for withdrawal thereof?

The Supreme Court analysed the facts of the case along with the submissions of the parties. It observed that the Management is competent authority to accept the resignation of the respondent. The Supreme Court was of the view that the Division Bench did not address the correct legal position in the effect of the ratification of the acceptance of resignation by the BOM at its 20th meeting held on 26.09.2016. Ratification operates retrospectively. It relates back to the date on which the original act was performed and cures the defect arising from the absence of prior authority.  Only the competent authority can ratify an invalid act. The authority which is legally empowered to perform the act must itself approve or adopt the earlier unauthorised action.

The Supreme Court observed that a resignation, even were accepted in the first instance by one not clothed with authority to accept it, may nonetheless become a consummated and irrevocable transaction where both sides have, by their conduct, treated it as final and altered their positions upon that footing.  A resigned person who has done all that lay in his power to complete a transaction cannot later be permitted to upset it merely because formal acceptance was still awaited.

The Supreme Court observed that it was the respondent who initiated the process by tendering resignation and then went further, of his own volition, to request waiver of the notice period and acceptance with effect from an advanced date 31.05.2016 rather than the original date of 31.08.2016, he himself had proposed. The university acted on that very request: it relieved him with effect from the date he requested, accepted his no-dues certificate, and issued him his last pay. The respondent also took a gainful employment after the acceptance of his resignation and relieved from the duty.

The respondent’s letter of withdrawal dated 22.09.2016, addressed nearly four months after he had already ceased to be in service and had accepted all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be equated with the withdrawal of a resignation yet to take legal effect. The resignation shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the appointing authority.

The Supreme Court observed that Paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988, while recognising withdrawal of an accepted resignation before actual relieving as the normal rule, expressly preserves to the competent authority the discretion to refuse such withdrawal, subject to the safeguard that reasons be recorded and communicated. That discretion was duly and lawfully exercised in the present case.  The competent authority’s conclusion, recorded in order dated 07.01.2019, that the respondent had no genuine intention of continuing in service and that the request for withdrawal was opportunistic, was a plausible and rational view.

The Supreme Court held that-

• Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 (Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat) is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 08.08.2022 of the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2022 is set aside insofar as it directs reinstatement of the respondent, and W.P. (C) No. 2611 of 2019 stands dismissed.
• Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024 (B.S. Rawat v. Delhi Technological University) is dismissed.
•  Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 625-626 of 2021 (Bharat Singh Rawat v. National Institute of Technology, Calicut) is dismissed.