Supreme Court Upholds Right To Withdraw Resignation: S.d. Manohara V. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

Date of Order:

13 September 2024

Bench:

J. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & J. Pankaj Mithal

Parties:

Appellant- S.D. Manohara
Respondent- Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

SUBJECT

The judgment in SD Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Ors. underscores the legal matter regarding withdrawal of resignation by an employee before its acceptance by the employer. In the present case, the Supreme court of India delved into the events, timelines and internal communications of the parties to pass a judgment in the favor of justice, equity and good conscience. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Right to Withdraw Resignation: An employee can withdraw their resignation before formal acceptance, based on precedents like Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra [AIR 1978 SC 694].
2. Employment Law: The case examined procedural aspects of resignation and withdrawal, emphasizing clear employer-employee communication.

OVERVIEW

1. The appellant, S.D. Manohara was employed at the Konkan Railway Corporation Limited. He proposed his resignation on December 5, 2013, stating that it would be effective after one month. Further, on 26 May 2014, the resignation was withdrawn by him. 
2. As per the respondent’s claim, the resignation was accepted on April 15, 2014, effective from 7 April, 2024.The withdrawal request was rejected by the respondent on 23 June 2014 and the appellant was relieved from the service on 01 July 2014.
3. Further, it was contended by the appellant that the letter of acceptance dated 15 April 2014 was a mere internal communication and was not served to him.
4. Further, a writ petition was filed b y the appellant before the Karnataka High Court. Initially, the appellant’s appeal was allowed and his reinstatement was directed but the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order which led the appellant to put forth an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether an employee can withdraw his resignation before it has formally been accepted by the employer?
2. Whether the resignation was formally accepted by the respondent, by taking into consideration, the internal communication dated 15 April 2014?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED B Y APPELLANT

1. The learned Counsel argued that the resignation of the appellant was allegedly accepted by a letter dated 15 April 2014, but the same was never communicated to the appellant. He argued that it was merely an internal document which neither referenced the resignation letter nor did it specify the relief date. Additionally, it only underscored the procedural actions.
2. Further the appellant claimed that he had withdrawn his resignation before its official acceptance. He also continued his service after the alleged acceptance date, which also included reporting of duty on 19 May 2014, highlighting that the resignation was not finalized.
3. It was further argued that the respondent directed the appellant on 10 May 2014 by a letter, to report to duty after an application for a leave on 24 April 2014. Additionally, a letter from his wife, dated 17 April and 20 May 2014 stating a request for not accepting the resignation further demonstrated an ongoing deliberation and discussion about his employment status. 
4. It was further argued that there was no clear communication regarding the acceptance of resignation. Additionally the continued service demonstrates that the resignation was not final. The letter containing internal discussion lacked direct inference to the appellant and it also did not result in immediate relief from duty. 
5. It was further argued that the rejection of the resignation withdrawal dated 23 June 2014 is legally insupportable as the withdrawal was done before the resignation’s effective date i.e. 1 July 2014. Thus, his withdrawal should have been accepted. 
6. Further, judicial precedents were cited and it was argued that an employee can withdraw a resignation before its acceptance. The continued service after the submission of resignation and actions of respondent including request to report to duty and issuing competency certificate indicated that the resignation was not finalized. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT

1. The respondent claimed that the appellant’s resignation was formally accepted on 15 April 2014 with effect from 7 April 2014 in par with his resignation letter. It was further argued that once the resignation is accepted, it could not be withdrawn. Thus, any subsequent withdrawal was invalid.
2. It was further argued that the withdrawal request was made too late i.e. on 26 May 2014 and the resignation had already taken effect by then. Therefore, the withdrawal was considered invalid as the resignation was already in force. 
3. It was further claimed that the internal communication was a valid acceptance of the resignation and there was no requisite to communicate directly to the appellant. It was argued that the appellant was relieved from the service on 1 July 2014 in accordance with the established procedure. 
4. It was argued that the relieving order dated 23 June 2014 was consistent with the administrative protocols and highlighted that the resignation process was complete and legally binding.
5. The respondent further countered the claim of continued service stating that appellant’s presence was related to the resignation process and was not an ongoing service. Reporting for duty on 19 May 2014 was merely a part of the exit process and not evidence of continued employment. 
6. They highlighted that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from April 28 to May 18, 2014, and the May 10, 2014, communication was a response to this absence, not an indication that his resignation was not accepted.
7. The respondents cited legal precedents affirming that once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn unilaterally. They argued that the appellant’s attempt to withdraw after acceptance was against established legal principles.
8. They argued that the Karnataka High Court's Division Bench correctly upheld the acceptance of the resignation and rejected the appellant's withdrawal attempt, reinforcing that the resignation process was validly executed.
9. The respondents stressed that allowing resignation withdrawals after acceptance could disrupt employment relationships and organizational discipline. They argued that rejecting the withdrawal was necessary to maintain administrative integrity.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

1. The core issue was whether S.D. Manohara had withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted by Konkan Railway Corporation Limited. The case focused on whether an employee can retract their resignation before acceptance by the employer.
2. The Court examined the claim that the resignation was accepted on April 15, 2014, with effect from April 7, 2014. It agreed with the appellant that the April 15 letter was an internal document and not formally communicated to him, thus lacking clear evidence of formal acceptance.
3. The Court noted the appellant's continued duty performance, including reporting on May 19, 2014, as evidence that the resignation had not yet taken effect. The May 10, 2014, letter directing him to report to duty also suggested that the resignation was not finalized.
4. Letters from the appellant’s wife asking the respondent not to accept the resignation were considered evidence that the resignation’s acceptance was still unresolved.
5. The Court criticized the respondent’s actions, noting inconsistencies such as the May 10 letter requesting the appellant to report to duty, which contradicted the claim that the resignation was accepted on April 15.
6. The Court agreed with the Single Judge's finding that the resignation was withdrawn before its effective date, criticizing the Division Bench's limited analysis that upheld the respondent’s stance based on the April 15 communication.
7. The Court determined that the appellant had withdrawn his resignation before formal acceptance and was entitled to reinstatement as the resignation had not been conclusively acted upon.
8. The Court ordered the respondent to reinstate the appellant within 30 days and to pay 50% of his salary for the period of his relieved service, which would count towards pension benefits.
9. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had withdrawn his resignation before it was formally accepted, with the internal communication of April 15, 2014, not serving as formal acceptance. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and partial back pay.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Supreme Court in S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors. upheld the principle that an employee can withdraw their resignation before its formal acceptance. The Court found that the appellant had effectively withdrawn his resignation in time, making the respondent's refusal unjustified. The ruling granted reinstatement with partial back pay, emphasizing the need for clear communication and procedural fairness in employment matters.