Joining a new post after applying through proper channel is not desertion warranting removal from service.

The applicant, a Vice Principal at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV), Katihar, applied for the post of Principal at Ratan Sen Inter College, Uttar Pradesh, through the proper channel in 2002

The respondents issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on May 29, 2002, stating he would be relieved upon final selection and acceptance of resignation

Following his selection in 2008, the applicant requested a lien, two years of unpaid leave, and formal relieving on November 17, 2008, to join the new post by the deadline of November 26, 2008

Due to the new employer's refusal to extend the joining period, the applicant joined the new post on November 20, 2008, after informing his Principal

Subsequently, the respondents issued a charge sheet alleging "desertion" of post and lack of integrity under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964

While the Inquiry Officer found the charges "not proved" due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note and passed an order of removal from service on September 3, 2013

The Appellate Authority rejected his appeal on November 25, 2013

1. Whether the applicant's act of joining a new post—after applying through the proper channel and obtaining an NOC—constitutes "desertion" or "misconduct" warranting removal from service

2. Whether the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the Inquiry Officer’s findings was legally justified

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of "Technical Resignation" and ex-post facto relieving for career progression

The court primarily applied Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, concerning absolute integrity and conduct unbecoming of a government servant

It relied on the Ministry of Finance OM No. 3379-E.III (B)/65 dated June 17, 1965, which treats resignation as a "technical formality" when a government servant applies through the proper channel for administrative reasons

The court cited the precedent of Vikas Sandhu v. Punjab and Haryana High Court [2025 (5) SLR 898], establishing that an employer cannot arbitrarily deny a technical resignation or NOC if an employee seeks better career prospects, as it violates fundamental rights to career progression

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant applied through the proper channel and held a valid NOC, his departure to join a superior post could not be characterized as "desertion"

The court noted that the applicant had proactively sought relieving orders and a lien before joining the new post, and his hurried joining was an act to safeguard his career progression in the face of an inflexible deadline from the new employer

The Tribunal found the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement note and the subsequent punishment of removal to be "unjustified and bad in the eyes of law," especially since the Inquiry Officer had correctly identified the applicant as a victim of circumstances

Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to explain why the applicant was treated differently from similarly situated employees (e.g., Shri R.M. Dwivedi and Shri T.N. Pandey) who were granted relief under comparable conditions

The Tribunal emphasized that a resignation must be treated as "technical" if proper channels are followed, regardless of whether the specific word "Technical" is used

The Tribunal held that the allegation of desertion was not a valid ground to deny formal relieving when the applicant had followed the requisite procedures for career advancement

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant ex-post facto relieving with effect from November 19, 2008

Regarding the request for a lien and leave without pay, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders as per the maintainable rules, noting that functional utility for a lien is generally limited to two to three years