Partly allowed

Karan Rajwar v. Director General & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Aug 2026W.P.(C)/7932/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partly allowed the petition, setting aside an impugned order rejecting a Coast Guard employee's resignation. The Court directed the respondents to decide the matter expeditely via a speaking order, considering the Commanding Officer's recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order; direct respondents to deal with the resignation by a speaking order within four weeks.

Karan Rajwar Vs Director General & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~64

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010252602026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 7932/2026

¶5

KARAN RAJWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yatharth Singh, Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Kumar (SPC), Ms. Pragya Bharti (GP) Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 14.08.2026

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The petitioner tendered a voluntary resignation from the employment of the respondent-Indian Coast Guard under the provision of Rule 27 and Rule 27A of the Coast Guard (General Rules), 1986.

¶12

The request for resignation was primarily based on his failure to discharge the moral and emotional obligations to support his ailing wife. 4. The request of the petitioner was recommended by the Commanding Officer-DIG. However, vide the impugned one-line order dated 23^rd April, 2026, the said request was rejected.

¶13

We are conscious of the fact that it is within the ambit of the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:51:20

¶16

respondents to accept or reject the request for resignation, however, when such request for resignation has been recommended by the Commanding Officer with its reasons, it was expected of the respondents to deal with the same while passing the order.

¶17

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

¶18

We direct the respondents to deal with the request of the petitioner for resignation by way of a speaking order, having regard to the recommendations of the Commanding Officer, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order.

¶19

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶20

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶21

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶22

AUGUST 14, 2026/DM/GS

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:51:20

Karan Rajwar v. Director General & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Rajwar v. Director General & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupesh Sehgal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Dr. Swetabh Suman

Mahindra Mstc Recycling Private Limited & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mukesh Gupta Vs Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College & Ors.

Vidya Bharati School Vs Anil Kumar Ahuja & Anr.

Satish Chander Vs Land and Development Authority & Anr.

Pooja Burman Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Vidya Bharti School Vs Ms Ranju Sharma and Anr.