Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a former constable in the Women’s Wing of the Bihar Military Police, challenging the acceptance of her resignation. The appellant had resigned in 2012 due to personal and family difficulties but later sought to withdraw her resignation nearly ten months later. The High Court upheld the earlier decision of the Single Judge, holding that the resignation was voluntary and validly accepted.

The appellant had submitted a resignation letter on 12 June 2012 citing family opposition, strained marital relations, and impending motherhood as reasons. She followed it with supporting letters on 13 and 14 June 2012. The Commandant accepted her resignation on 19 June 2012.

In April 2013, she approached the authorities requesting to withdraw her resignation, claiming emotional distress, denial of maternity leave, and coercion. She argued that her resignation had been accepted in haste and without following due procedure under Rule 808 of the Bihar Police Manual, which discourages hurried acceptance of resignation and provides for a reflection period.

The Division Bench, however, carefully examined her original and follow-up resignation letters and concluded that:

• The resignation was driven by personal circumstances, not by coercion or pressure from the employer.
• She was given adequate time (a week) to reconsider her decision.
• There was no record or proof of refusal of leave.
• Rule 808 allows discretion to the authority regarding the timing of acceptance; the week-long gap was deemed reasonable.

The Court emphasized that once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn unless explicitly permitted by the rules or employer. Further, a delay of ten months in seeking reinstatement suggested a change of mind, not a legal or procedural flaw.

The Court also distinguished her case from precedents where resignations were found to be forced or taken under threat, stating that no such elements existed in her case.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that resignations, once voluntarily tendered and accepted by a competent authority, become final. It also clarifies that:

• Employees must clearly assess their decisions before submitting resignations.
• Authorities are within their rights to accept such resignations after allowing reasonable time for reconsideration.
• Emotional distress or post-facto regret cannot form the basis for legal reinstatement unless supported by evidence of coercion or irregularity.

The ruling is particularly significant for government and uniformed services, where organizational stability and discipline are paramount. It cautions employees against casual or emotional resignation decisions, especially without using prescribed notice periods or formal leave mechanisms.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Was the resignation tendered under compulsion or coercion?
  ➤ No. The resignation was prompted by personal reasons without any undue influence from the employer.
• Did the employer act hastily in accepting the resignation?
  ➤ No. A full week was given for reconsideration, which met the standard under Rule 808.
• Can the resignation be withdrawn ten months after its acceptance?
  ➤ No. Once accepted, and in absence of procedural lapse or coercion, a resignation cannot be retracted.
• Does Rule 808 or Section 8 of the Police Act mandate a two-month notice period?
  ➤ The two-month notice is for administrative convenience and does not invalidate a voluntary resignation without such notice.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P., (2003) 1 SCC 701
• Dr. N.P. Rao v. Tata Iron and Steel Co., 1990 BBCJ 149
• Rakhi Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2014 (3) PLJR 443

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Chand Mal Chayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 10 SCC 258

Case Title
Kavita Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 895 of 2018 in CWJC No. 5731 of 2015

Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 107

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble The Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Anjana Mishra

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad and Mrs. Maruti Kumari — for the Appellant
• Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma (AC to AAG-3) — for the Respondents

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM4OTUjMjAxOCMxI04=-W4nqCMttVl8=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.