Relief Based on Resignation Submitted Outside Prescribed Digital Portal and During Uncommunicated Disciplinary Proceedings is Legally Unsustainable

The Petitioner, an officer at the Bank of Maharashtra, was transferred from the Guwahati Zone to the Dehradun Zone on 08.08.2024

Following periods of medical leave for himself and his mother (who was later certified with a 55% benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016), the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence.

Under alleged duress caused by the rejection of leave to care for his mother, the Petitioner sent emails on 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025 expressing an intent to resign and requesting access to the HRMS portal to submit a formal resignation.

On 08.05.2025, after the Petitioner requested a transfer back to Guwahati as a primary caregiver, the Bank abruptly communicated the acceptance of his "resignation" effective 09.05.2025.

The Bank contended that disciplinary proceedings had concluded with a "censure" on 15.04.2025, though this order was never served on the Petitioner.

1. Whether the Bank could validly accept a resignation that was not submitted through the mandatory HRMS portal as required by internal circulars?

2. Whether a resignation can be legally accepted while disciplinary proceedings are effectively pending due to non-communication of the final order?

3. Whether the Bank's failure to conduct an "Exit Interview" as per the Exit Policy vitiated the resignation process?

The Court applied the Bank’s Exit Policy (2024), specifically Clause 3.3.1 regarding written notice for resignation and Clause 6.4 which prohibits resignation during pending disciplinary proceedings without prior written approval.

The Court further relied on the Bank Circular dated 14.09.2023, which mandated that all resignation applications must be "punched in" and processed through the HRMS (HR@1Click) portal only to be valid.

The Court also acknowledged the protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 regarding the transfer of caregivers of persons with benchmark disabilities.

The Court reasoned that under the Circular dated 14.09.2023, the HRMS portal is the exclusive "proper channel" for tendering resignation.

Since the Petitioner requested but was never granted access to the HRMS to "punch in" his resignation, no valid resignation existed in the eyes of the law for the Bank to accept.

The Court found that the disciplinary proceeding was legally "pending" on the date of the purported acceptance (08.05.2025) because the "censure" order dated 15.04.2025 had never been dispatched or served upon the Petitioner; an uncommunicated administrative order has no legal force.

Consequently, the Bank violated Clause 6.4 of its own Exit Policy by accepting a resignation during the pendency of such proceedings.

The Court noted the resignation was triggered by "stress and duress" and emphasized that the Bank ignored the Petitioner’s status as a caregiver to a disabled parent.

It set aside the relieving orders dated 09.05.2025 and ordered the Petitioner’s reinstatement into service within four weeks, with 50% back wages (basic pay) from the date of termination to reinstatement.

The period of absence is to be treated as continuous service for seniority and terminal benefits, and the Bank was directed to remain sensitive to the Petitioner’s role as a caregiver for a person with benchmark disability.