In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that if an employee withdraws their resignation before it is officially accepted by the employer, the resignation cannot be deemed to have been accepted. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal while ordering the reinstatement of an employee with the Indian Railways.
The apex court observed that merely circulating an internal communication regarding the acceptance of an employee’s resignation does not constitute formal acceptance. Official communication to the employee is required to finalize the resignation process.
The case pertained to a petitioner who had served for 23 years with the Konkan Rail Corporation since 1990. In December 2013, he submitted his resignation, requesting it take effect after one month. Although his resignation was internally accepted by the Railways effective April 7, 2014, no official communication was made to the petitioner. On May 26, 2014, he withdrew his resignation. However, the Railways relieved him from duty on July 1, 2014.
The petitioner contended that despite the internal acceptance of his resignation, he had been asked to report for duty during the period of April 28 to May 18, 2014, due to his “unauthorized absence,” which indicated the lack of finality in the acceptance of his resignation. Following the withdrawal of his resignation, the petitioner continued to remain in touch with the employer and reported for duty on May 19, 2014.
After being relieved from his duties, the petitioner approached the High Court, where a single judge ruled in his favor. However, this decision was overturned by a Division Bench following an appeal by the Railways. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, upheld the single judge’s order, reaffirming that the resignation had not attained finality as the petitioner had remained in consistent communication with the employer and reported for duty when asked.
The bench emphasized that the Railways’ reliance on an internal letter of acceptance dated April 15, 2014, was not sufficient, as there was no evidence that the letter had been officially communicated to the petitioner. The court concluded that the resignation had not been finalized, and therefore, the petitioner’s reinstatement was ordered.