Allowed

Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026WP(C)/4584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside the rejection order of the petitioners withdrawal of resignation. The court held that personal problems cannot justify rejection without a disciplinary proceeding and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 27-05-2023 and 30-06-2023 were set aside, the petitioner reinstated in service within one month, and the absence period regularized.

Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010174232024

2026:GAU-AS:13788

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4584/2024

¶6

PRAMOD KUMAR TIWARI

¶7

S/O- LATE BADRI PRASAD TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GURPUR, P.O. GHURPUR, P.S. GHOORPUR, DISTRICT- ALLAHABAD, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN- 212107 PHONE NO. 8294528041, 9455195185

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL BLOCK-V EASTERN R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI- 110066

¶11

3:THE COMMANDING OFFICER 06 BN SSB RANIGHULI KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 78337

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R J SARMA, MR U PANDEY,MR. K LAHKAR,A MISHRA,MR. A TARAFDAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. A K DUTTA(R-1 TO 3))

¶14

Page No.# 2/12

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 15-09-2026

¶19

Heard Mr. K. Lahkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

¶20

The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to a communication dated 30-06-2023, by which the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation, was rejected.

¶21

As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), on 02-04-2006. The petitioner continued in his services and was subsequently, promoted as Head Constable. While the petitioner was posted with the 6^th Bn. SSB at Ranighuli, Kokrajhar, he had received information from his family that their land was being tried to be grabbed by some land mafia basing on the strength of forged and fabricated documents.

¶22

3.1. The petitioner, accordingly, lodged an FIR before the jurisdictional Police Station. However, the police had not proceeded to take steps in the matter and provide justice to the petitioner. It is projected that pursuant to the FIR lodged by the petitioner, on conclusion of the investigation, a Final Report was submitted by the police in the matter and the petitioner had filed an objection, thereto, before the Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The Judicial Magistrate, thereafter, on consideration of the objection submitted by the petitioner, had proceeded with the trial of the case, which is presently pending

¶23

Page No.# 3/12

¶24

disposal.

¶25

3.2. In view of the said developments taking place, the petitioner projects that his family was being constantly harassed by the persons against whom the petitioner had

¶26

raised allegations and the said aspect of the matter was also communicated by the petitioner to the higher authorities of the Force. It is further projected that the Commandant of the Unit, wherein, the petitioner was posted, had also taken up the matter with the Superintendent of Police as well as the jurisdictional District Magistrate of the native village of the petitioner, however, no action was taken. The steps taken by the petitioner, had no effect and the harassment meted out to his family being continued, the petitioner proceeded to submit his resignation on 24-05-2023. The said resignation was accepted by the concerned authorities on 26-05-2023 and the petitioner was relieved from his services, on 27-05-2023. The petitioner, on 27-05-2023, submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation and therein, inter alia, had contended that his mental condition, at the time of submission of his application for resignation, was not good.

¶27

3.3. It was further contended that the petitioner had prayed for grant of leave considering the problems faced by his family and had 240 days of Earned Leave in his leave account, however, the petitioner was not granted leave and asked to resign from his service. The said application submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Commandant of the Battalion, to which the petitioner was posted in the light of the OM dated 10-06-2019. Upon such consideration, vide communication dated 30-06-2023, the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation was rejected on the ground that the family problems faced by the petitioner would not permit him to continue his active

¶28

Page No.# 4/12

¶29

duty in the Force efficiently and on account of his personal problems he would not be meeting the requirement of the job.

¶30

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

¶31

Mr. K. Lahkar, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation was considered under the provisions of the OM dated 10-062019. By referring to the provisions of the OM dated 10-06-2019, Mr. Lahkar has submitted that the withdrawal of a resignation is permissible even after the acceptance of the same by the competent authority, provided the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper. Mr. Lahkar further submits that there is no material brought on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the conduct of the petitioner was in any manner improper during the period when he had submitted application for resignation from his service and/ or during the period the same was considered and accepted. Mr. Lahkar further submitted that the reason assigned for rejection of the application of the petitioner, in the communication dated 30-06-2023, to be clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the said ground which relates to the suitability of the petitioner to continue in his services, could not have been raised by the Commandant, while considering the matter as to whether the application for withdrawal of resignation was to be accepted or not. Mr. Lahkar submits that the said matter would have been so permissible to be raised only in the event a due departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner. Mr. Lahkar, accordingly, submits that the provisions of the OM dated 10-06-2019, having permitted the acceptance of the application submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his

¶32

Page No.# 5/12

¶33

resignation, the non-consideration of the application for withdrawal submitted by the petitioner, by the respondent authorities, in its proper perspective has caused prejudice to the interest of the petitioner and accordingly, he submits that the order of rejection dated 30-06-2023, along with the order dated 27-05-2023, issued towards acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner, would mandate interference from this Court.

¶34

Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner after he had submitted his application for resignation from his service, was counseled by his superiors. It is only when the petitioner had continuously pressed for acceptance of his resignation, the respondent authorities had proceeded to issue the order dated 27-05-2023, accepting the resignation of the petitioner. Mr. Dutta submits that the conduct of the petitioner as borne out from his service records, is not proper, inasmuch as, the petitioner was awarded minor punishment as well as had around 05 (five) cases pertaining to overstay of leave. It is further projected that during the year 2022, the petitioner had availed 196 days of leave in 05 (five) spells and during the year 2023, he had availed 60 days of leave in 02 (two) spells, till his release from service on 27-05-2023.

¶35

5.1. Mr. Dutta, further submits that the petitioner, prior to submission of his application for resignation from service, had submitted an application praying for proceeding on voluntary retirement. However, the petitioner not having completed the mandated service period, his such application could not be accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted application for resignation from his service. Mr. Dutta submits that considering

¶36

the personal/ family problems faced by the petitioner, he was found to be not

¶37

Page No.# 6/12

¶38

concentrating on the job required to be performed by him and accordingly, the competent authority while considering the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation, had also in the interest of the Force, considered the manner in which the petitioner was discharging his duties and had accordingly, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not fit for further continuation in his service on account of his domestic problems, which had prevented him from discharging his duties in the Force. Accordingly, Mr. Dutta submits that there is no error on the part of the respondent authorities, in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, for withdrawal of his resignation. Mr. Dutta submits that the claims made in the present writ petition would not mandate acceptance from this Court.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶40

The petitioner, in the present proceeding, on account of certain personal as well as family problems faced by him had submitted an application on 24-05-2023, praying for resignation from his service. The petitioner had in his said resignation letter highlighted that on account of certain land dispute and false litigation initiated in the matter at his native village and also his mother not keeping well; the petitioner being the sole care taker of the family, he was required to submit his resignation in the matter. The respondent authorities had counseled the petitioner after receipt of the said application dated 24-05-2023 and the petitioner having insisted for the acceptance of his resignation, the competent authority vide the order dated 27-05-2023, relieved the petitioner from his services, w.e.f. 27-05-2023, on the acceptance of his resignation, on 26-05-2023. The

¶41

Page No.# 7/12

¶42

petitioner, thereafter on 27-05-2023, submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation and therein, had projected that on account of his mental condition, at the time of submitting his application for resignation from his services, the application submitted be permitted to be withdrawn. The respondent authorities vide communication dated 30-06-2023, on consideration of the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation, had proceeded to reject the same.

¶43

The contents of the communication dated 30-06-2023, being relevant for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition, the same is extracted, herein-below, for ready reference:-

¶44

“To

¶45

Regt No. 060351341 ex. HC (GD) Pramod Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Badri Prasad Tiwari Village & Post-Ghoor Pur Tehsil-Bara, Distt. Paryagraj Uttar Pradesh-212107

¶46

Sub: Withdrawal of resignation and resumption of Govt. duty.

¶47

This is with reference to your letter no. nil dated 28.05.2023 addressed to the Commandant, 6 Bn SSB, Ranighuli regarding cancellation of withdrawal and resumption of Government service.

¶48

Your request for withdrawal of resignation and resumption of Government service has been considered by the Commandant, 6 Bn SSB in accordance with the guidelines issued vide Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Deptt. of Personnel & Training OM No. 28035/2/2014-Estt. (A) dated 10.06.2019.

¶49

After careful examination of the case and going through the reasons/circumstances under which you tendered resignation, the Commandant, 6 Bn SSB has concluded that you will not be in position to continue such Active Duty' in Force with your problems efficiently and you would not be meeting the requirement of job with your personal problem.

¶50

Page No.# 8/12

¶51

Hence, your request for cancellation of resignation and resumption of Government service is NOT ACCEPTED by the Commandant, 6 Bn SSB.

¶52

This is for your information.

¶53

(Lokesh Kumar Singh), 21C

¶54

Commanding Officer 6^th Bn SSB, Ranighuli”

¶55

A perusal of the said communication would go to reveal that the application submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation was considered in the light of the provisions contained in the OM dated 10-06-2019. Having considered the said application, the competent authority proceeded to conclude that the petitioner would not be in a position to continue his active services in the Force, considering the personal problems faced by him. He was further held to be not meeting the requirement of the job on account of the personal problems faced by him. Accordingly, the application submitted in the matter was rejected.

¶56

The application for withdrawal of the resignation submitted by the petitioner having been considered vide the communication dated 30-06-2023, in the light of the OM dated 10-06-2019, the provisions, thereof, would be required to be noticed by this Court. A perusal of the OM dated 10-06-2019 would go to reveal that the same was issued with regard to the withdrawal of resignation by central Government servants appointed after 31-12-2003 and covered by the National Pension System (NPS). In the said OM, it was highlighted that in the matter of withdrawal of resignation of Government servants, of Central Civil Services/ posts appointed after 31-12-2003, who are covered under the NPS and for whom the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 is not applicable was considered and with

¶57

Page No.# 9/12

¶58

the approval of the competent authority, the guidelines, i.e. to be followed while

¶59

considering the request for withdrawal of resignation of the Government servant was set out.

¶60

Clause 2 of the said OM dated 10-06-2019, being relevant is extracted, here-in-

¶61

below:-

¶62

“2. The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely

¶63

(a) that the resignation was tendered by the Government Servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation:

¶64

(b) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper:

¶65

(c) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days:

¶66

(d) that the post which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.”

¶67

A perusal of the circumstances as set out in Clause-2 of the said OM dated 10-06-

¶68

2019, reveals that when a resignation is tendered by a Government servant for some

¶69

compelling reasons, which did not involve any reflection on his integrity efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender his resignation, such application can be accepted. It further provides that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date

¶70

Page No.# 10/12

¶71

from which the request for withdrawal was made the conduct of the person concerned if in no way improper, such application would be permissible to be considered. It also provides that period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days. The guidelines also mandate that the application for withdrawal of resignation would be permissible to be so considered, provided the post vacated by the Government servant on acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post is available for the purpose of providing resumption in service to such Government servant.

¶72

Applying the said guidelines to the facts involved in the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner had submitted his application being placed in a situation, wherein, his presence in his home at his native place was mandated. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner while discharging his duties had any allegation levelled against him touching upon his integrity and/ or his conduct.

¶73

Further, the efficiency of the petitioner is also not being demonstrated by the respondents to be of a level which would mandate his invalidation from service. The petitioner in the present matter is found to have submitted his application for withdrawal of his resignation on the day when he was released from his services. The post held by the petitioner is also not projected by the respondents to have been filled up by another person.

¶74

Accordingly, considering the guidelines now put in place vide the OM dated 10-06-

¶75

2019, this Court is of the considered view that it was permissible for the respondent

¶76

Page No.# 11/12

¶77

authorities to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation and to permit him to resume his services in the Force. However, as noticed, hereinabove, the application submitted by the petitioner was not rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not satisfied the guidelines set out in Clause-2 of the OM dated 10-06-2019, but his application is found to have been rejected on conclusion drawn by the respondent authorities that the petitioner given his personal problems would not be in a position to continue with active duty in the Force, efficiently.

¶78

This Court on a consideration of the ground assigned for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner, finds that the said grounds could not have been raised by the respondent authorities for the purpose of rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, for withdrawal of his resignation, inasmuch as, the said ground would have been permissible to be so raised only after a disciplinary proceeding, against the petitioner was instituted and concluded, wherein, the said aspect of the matter, on examination, stood established. In the said communication dated 30-06-2023, there is no material disclosed, as regards the basis on which the said conclusion was drawn by the competent authority for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the same would not mandate an acceptance. The leaves taken by the petitioner, being sanctioned by the respondent authorities, the same could not have been held against him subsequently.

¶79

In view of the above discussions and in the light of the guidelines set out in the provisions of the OM dated 10-06-2019, the order dated 27-05-2023 and the

¶80

Page No.# 12/12

¶81

communication dated 30-06-2023, stand set aside. Accordingly, the respondent

¶82

authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner, in his services.

¶83

On reinstatement in his services, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salaries, w.e.f. 27-05-2023 till the date he resumes his services. The OM dated 10-06-2019 having also stipulated that a member of the Force on being permitted resume on his services on withdrawal of his resignation, the interruption of his service occasioning in the matter, in the meanwhile, would also stand condoned, the period of absence of the petitioner from 27-05-2023, till the date of his resumption in service, in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, shall be regularized by the respondent authorities, notionally. It is further provided that the petitioner, in the event, is found after his such resumption in service, to be not discharging his duties, as required from a member of the Force, the present order would not hinder, initiation of appropriate proceeding against the petitioner, in the matter. The respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate order(s) permitting the petitioner to resume his services within a period of 01 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶84

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶85

JUDGE

¶86

Comparing Assistant

Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Tiwari v. the Union of India and 2 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