HC grants final opportunity to IAS officer to file compliance affidavit, subject to Rs 1 lakh costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted a further opportunity to an IAS officer to file a long-pending compliance affidavit, but made it conditional upon payment of Rs 1 lakh as costs to be deducted from his salary.

The direction by Justice Sudeepti Sharma came on a petition alleging contempt of court in a service matter filed by against IAS officer Mukul Kumar. At the onset, the Bench observed last opportunity was granted to the respondent to file compliance affidavit on the previous date of hearing. The opportunity was granted with the condition that Rs 1 lakh costs would be imposed in case of non-filing of compliance affidavit. The amount was to be deducted from his salary.

Justice Sharma observed the counsel for the respondent was seeking some more time to file compliance affidavit. “Still one opportunity is granted to the respondent to file compliance affidavit, subject to payment of Rs 1 lakh cost to be deducted from the salary of the respondent,” the Bench observed.

The Bench further directed that the amount be shared equally between the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees’ Welfare Fund. The matter has now been adjourned to May 25.

The case has its genesis in an order passed by the High Court over a year back pertaining to the petitioner-employee’s resignation. The Bench was told that the resignation was accepted with retrospective effect nearly three decades back despite its prior withdrawal. The Bench then hearing the matter had held the decision to be without jurisdiction and contrary to settled legal principles. The court had also quashed the order dated September 6, 1994, and directed that the petitioner be treated as in service with entitlement to 50 per cent back wages.

The ruling by Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi came on the petition filed in 2001 by a senior accountant, who initially tendered his resignation on November 1, 1993, with effect from December 1, 1993. But the employer did not accept the resignation and asked him to clear outstanding house-building loan dues. The resignation remained in limbo for months until the petitioner withdrew it on August 8, 1994. Yet, the competent authority on September 6, 1994, accepted the resignation with retrospective effect.

The petitioner challenged the action before UT Labour Court, which dismissed the reference on the ground that he did not fall under the definition of a ‘workman.’ The matter subsequently reached the high court, where the petitioner contended that the retrospective acceptance of resignation, after its withdrawal, was legally untenable.

Deciding the case in just two hearings, Justice Sethi categorically ruled that resignation did not take effect unless accepted through a specific order. “There is no deeming fiction of the acceptance of the resignation once given by an employee,” the court observed. It further emphasised that the acceptance of resignation with retrospective effect was impermissible under service rules.

“Once the rules governing the service do not envisage the retrospective acceptance of resignation, the acceptance of the same cannot be done retrospectively,” the Justice Sethi asserted, while referring to Rule 14 of the HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988.

Justice Sethi also clarified that the master-servant relationship continued until a resignation was accepted by the competent authority. “A bare perusal of the rule would show that till the resignation is accepted by the competent authority, the master and servant relationship does not come to an end. In the present case, acceptance of resignation dated November 1, 1993, was only done on September 6, 1994. Hence, the position is to be seen as on September 6, 1994, as to whether the competent authority had the jurisdiction to accept the resignation or not.”

Justice Sethi also reinforced the principle that a resignation could be withdrawn at any time before it was formally accepted. “Once a resignation which is sought to be accepted had already been withdrawn by the petitioner, there was no jurisdiction with the authority concerned to accept the same with retrospective effect so as to overcome the withdrawal of the resignation by the employee concerned.”