UNION OF INDIA Vs. AVDESH KR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Avdesh Kr Singh was at the relevant time was Inspector, Customs and Central Excise. On 16.2.1996 he has submitted a letter resigning from service contending therein that urged by the social cause for the upliftment of the people of this area in general and down trodden society in particular and on pressure from mass people, I feel it my duty to stand by their side at this stage of my life. In view of the above, I have decided to resign from service with immediate effect to serve the cause of the people, which I am unable if I am in Government service. I earnestly request you to kindly accept my resignation forthwith. The authority vide order dated 29.3.1996 accepted the resignation of the respondent. Lateron, admittedly, the respondent stood in the general election and has lost the election. On 16.5.96 the respondent moved an application and made a prayer under Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 for allowing him to withdraw his resignation letter and resume service. Vide order dated 21.6.96 the prayer of the respondent was allowed directing him to join at Karimganj with a rider that order is subject to the approval of Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. This order specifically mentioned that if the terms and conditions mentioned in the order is acceptable then alone he may join as Inspector in Karimganj Range under Silchar Central Excise Division. Thus, withdrawal of his resignation was accepted on the condition that it requires the approval of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. In pursuance thereof the respondent has joined the service on 24.6.96. However, the Central Board of Excise & Customs did not agree with the acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation of the respondent and directed the Appointing Authority to pass order withdrawing the letter dated 21.6.1996 and accordingly on 20.12.1996 the order was withdrawn. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the authority, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by filing OA No.293/96 and the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 29.1.99 disposed of the said application. According to the Tribunal the decision was taken by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which is not the authority under the Rule to take a decision. The decision is to be taken by the Appointing Authority taking into consideration all the factors, and therefore, gave direction to the Appointing Authority to decide the question of withdrawal of the resignation on his own by a reasoned order.

(2.) In accordance with the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Appointing Authority took up the matter of the withdrawal of the resignation of the Respondent and passed order dated 6th May 1999. The order reads that in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 it has been provided that the Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest if, among other conditions, the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons. In its view, the resignation from service for contesting general election does not constitute a compelling reason as provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Rules. The decision to contest the general election has been taken voluntarily and consciously by the applicant. It is an option, which he chose to exercise. Therefore, the Authority is of the view that the applicant does not fulfil the condition of sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Rules, and the application for withdrawal submitted by the applicant is not permissible. The net result of the order passed by the appointing authority was that the withdrawal application of the respondent has not been accepted by the Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No.153/99. The Tribunal has taken a view that the respondent's application for withdrawal of the resignation has already been accepted by order dated 21.6.96, therefore, permission to withdraw the resignation may be reviewed on cogent reasons only. The Tribunal has held, that the Authorities has to decide whether reasons cited by the Respondent for tendering his resignation was made under some driving force or influence, was the key question that was required to be objectively decided by the authority while exercising the power under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Rules. The Tribunal was of the view that the exercise of power under sub-rule (4) of the Rule 26 has not been properly made. With that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed to reconsider the application for withdrawal filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the Appointing Authority on 6.5.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union of India has preferred the present petition.

(3.) To appreciate the judgment of the Tribunal of remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Appointing Authority, it is necessary for us to look into the relevant Rule, viz. Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which reads thus: