The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that a resignation letter submitted by a police officer without the mandatory two-month notice period is “defective” and cannot be accepted by the department. Setting aside the acceptance of a Sub-Inspector’s resignation, the court held that compliance with Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861, and Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations is a pre-requisite.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Vikas Budhwar, the court allowed the writ petition filed by Sub-Inspector Ajeet Singh, quashing the Inspector General of Police, Meerut’s order dated 20.01.2018 accepting his resignation, as well as the S.S.P. Meerut’s subsequent order dated 22.06.2022 directing the recovery of training and salary costs amounting to Rs. 4,97,600/-. The petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ajeet Singh, was initially appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police on 13.01.2010. He subsequently participated in the 2011 recruitment for Sub-Inspector in Civil Police and Platoon Commander in PAC in Uttar Pradesh. Upon selection, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in Civil Police on 31.08.2017, after taking a technical resignation from the Delhi Police.
On 28.12.2017, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Meerut Range, stating that due to ongoing medical problems, he was “Job ko karne mein asamarth hai” (unable to perform the job) and requested to be “mukt kar purv ke pad par bhenje ki kripa kare” (relieved from the post of Sub-Inspector and sent back to his previous post).
Following an enquiry, the IGP, Meerut, accepted the petitioner’s resignation via an order dated 20.01.2018, which also directed that the amount incurred on his training and the salary paid to him be recovered.
On 15.02.2018, the petitioner submitted another application to the IGP, Meerut, seeking to withdraw his resignation. He stated that the resignation letter was submitted “bimaari ke dabaav mein” (under the pressure of illness) and that he now wished to remain in the services of the U.P. Police.
However, on 22.06.2022, the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Meerut, rejected the petitioner’s claim for withdrawing the resignation and directed the recovery of Rs. 4,97,600/-. The petitioner challenged both the acceptance order (20.01.2018) and the recovery order (22.06.2022) before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Indra Raj Singh, argued that the impugned orders were unsustainable as they violated the procedure set out in Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861, and Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations. It was contended that these provisions mandate that a police officer’s resignation must be preceded by a two-month prior notice, which must also be unconditional.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the letter dated 28.12.2017 “does not recite even a single word about a two months notice” and was also conditional, as it requested a relieving order to join the Delhi Police.
Conversely, Sri S.K. Pal, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State, argued that once the petitioner had submitted his resignation and it was accepted on 20.01.2018, he could not be permitted to withdraw it. He pointed out that the withdrawal application was submitted on 15.02.2018, “i.e. much after the acceptance.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court, after hearing the submissions and perusing the record, proceeded to analyze the relevant legal provisions. Hon’ble Vikas Budhwar, J., reproduced Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861, and Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
The judgment noted that a “conjoint reading” of these provisions “cast a duty upon the Police Officer, who seeks resignation to give a notice of two months of his intention to resign.”
The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that the resignation letter dated 28.12.2017 was not in conformity with the law, “as the basic ingredient, which was a pre-requisite was itself lacking being two months’ notice.”
Distinguishing the State’s argument, the Court observed: “Certainly, once a request is made for resignation and is accepted then the employee cannot turn around and insist that the resignation should be withdrawn, but here there is a distinct feature that the notice itself was defective. Once the notice was defective and not in conformity with the provisions… then it could not have been taken notice of.”
The bench relied on several precedents, including Satya Paul Kalra vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, which held that “On a strict interpretation of Section 9, the notice must precede the resignation.” The Court also cited Dinesh Kumar vs. Commandant 15th Battalion, which observed that the two-month notice period serves a twofold purpose: allowing the employer to find a replacement and giving “an opportunity to the employee to re-think.”
The High Court identified two other flaws in the acceptance of the resignation.
- Conditional Resignation: The Court found that the petitioner’s request to be “repatriated or sent to Delhi Police” partook “the character of a conditional resignation, which is not contemplated either in Section 9 of the Police Act or Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations.”
- Discharge of Debt: The Court noted that Regulation 505 specifies a resignation cannot be accepted “until and unless he fully discharged the debt.” In this case, the resignation was accepted on 20.01.2018, but the order for recovery of the debt (salary and training costs) was passed much later on 22.06.2022. “Thus, even otherwise, the resignation could not have been accepted,” the Court held.
Concluding its analysis, the Court stated, “an irresistible conclusion stands drawn, that the resignation could not have been accepted, particularly when it was not as per the provisions contained under the statute.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Region, and the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the S.S.P. Meerut.
The Court directed that the writ petitioner “shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which are admissible and permissible in law, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.”
