Judicial officer reinstated after Odisha HC finds resignation was driven by lack of treatment for her autistic son and withdrawn before formal acceptance

The petitioner, an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M., was transferred from Bhubaneswar to Hindol in July 2022. Her only son suffered from autism and required continuous treatment and specialised therapy, which were allegedly unavailable at Hindol, Dhenkanal and nearby areas.

She therefore submitted a representation dated 5 September 2022 seeking posting at Bhubaneswar for two and a half years; the representation was discussed but deferred by the High Court’s Standing Committee and was never finally decided or communicated to her.

In the assertedly distressed circumstances, the petitioner tendered her resignation on 29 November 2022. The High Court Full Court resolved on 20 December 2022 to recommend acceptance of the resignation to the State Government.

Before the resignation was accepted by the competent authority, the petitioner submitted an application on 21 December 2022 withdrawing it. The application was received by the High Court on the same day and placed before the Chief Justice on 22 December 2022, who directed that it be placed before the Full Court.

The High Court Registry did not inform the State Government or the Governor about the withdrawal application or the direction to place it before the Full Court. The Governor approved the recommendation to accept the resignation on 31 December 2022, and the State Government issued the impugned notification dated 2 January 2023, relieving the petitioner with effect from 3 January 2023.

The petitioner challenged the notification under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the notification, reinstatement and consequential service benefits.

Whether the petitioner’s resignation dated 29 November 2022 was voluntary, or was tendered under compelling circumstances and duress arising from the unresolved posting request and her son’s medical condition?

Whether the petitioner could validly withdraw her resignation on 21 December 2022 before its acceptance by the competent appointing authority?

Whether the Full Court’s resolution recommending acceptance of the resignation amounted to acceptance by the competent appointing authority, notwithstanding that the Governor accepted it only on 31 December 2022?

Whether the State Government’s notification dated 2 January 2023 was liable to be quashed because the withdrawal application and subsequent developments were not placed before or considered by the competent authorities?

The Court applied Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution, holding that the Governor is the appointing authority for members of the Odisha Judicial Service, while the High Court exercises administrative, supervisory and disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary.

Rules 41 and 46 of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007 incorporate the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the Odisha Service Code and applicable service rules, including residuary rules applicable to State officers.

Rule 34(4) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 permits withdrawal of resignation in the public interest where it was tendered for compelling reasons not involving integrity, efficiency or conduct and there has been a material change in circumstances.

Relying on Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301, the Court held that a prospective resignation may be withdrawn before it becomes effective, and that, for a government servant whose resignation requires acceptance, it becomes effective only upon acceptance by the competent authority.

The Court also relied on Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148, for the principle that personal hardship may not ordinarily invalidate a transfer but must be considered by the competent authority.

The Court also relied on Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 187, concerning the balance between judicial service obligations and the care of a child with serious medical needs.

The DoPT guidelines on resignation were also considered, particularly the principle that withdrawal before acceptance results in automatic withdrawal of the resignation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s representation dated 5 September 2022 seeking accommodation at Bhubaneswar had not been finally decided, despite the acknowledged lack of specialised treatment and therapy for her autistic son at Hindol and Dhenkanal.

The failure to consider or communicate a decision on that representation materially contributed to the petitioner’s distressed condition and resignation.

The Court therefore held that the resignation was not voluntary but was tendered under compelling circumstances and duress.

Independently, the Court held that the resignation had not become effective when the petitioner withdrew it on 21 December 2022. The Full Court’s resolution of 20 December 2022 was only a recommendation to the State Government and Governor; it did not constitute acceptance by the appointing authority.

Since the Governor accepted the resignation only on 31 December 2022, the withdrawal made on 21 December 2022 preceded acceptance and was legally effective under the principle in Gopal Chandra Misra.

The High Court’s failure to communicate the withdrawal application to the State Government and the Governor, followed by the Chief Justice’s unilateral direction not to place the withdrawal before the Full Court, could not prejudice the petitioner, particularly as she continued working and receiving salary until her relief.

The Court further found that the authorities acted on incomplete information because the State Government and Governor were not informed of the withdrawal application or the Chief Justice’s direction dated 22 December 2022. Consequently, the approval and consequential notification were based on a materially incomplete factual record.

The Full Court’s recommendation did not itself terminate her service, and the Governor’s subsequent approval could not override the prior withdrawal.

The writ petition was allowed. The State Government’s notification dated 2 January 2023 relieving the petitioner from service with effect from 3 January 2023 was quashed.

The opposite parties were directed to reinstate her forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M. She was denied back wages but was granted continuity of service and other consequential service benefits from 3 January 2023.