Resignation is a right of the employee and cannot be withheld due to administrative staff shortages.

The applicant, a Trackman IV (Level 1) in the N.F. Railway since 2019, applied for the post of Technician Grade III (Level 2) under RRB Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024

After qualifying for the post, he was required to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his current employer

He applied for the NOC on 08.01.2025 and 04.04.2025, but the respondents rejected his request on 19.05.2025 via a cryptic order, citing staff shortage and operational exigencies

Consequently, the applicant submitted his resignation on 09.06.2025 to join the new post

The respondents contended that the applicant failed to obtain prior permission before appearing for the examination, which they argued was mandatory under Rule 302 of the IREC and Master Circular No. 21/2019

1. Whether the respondents' rejection of the NOC via a cryptic order was legally sustainable

2. Whether administrative grounds such as "staff shortage" are valid reasons to withhold the resignation of an employee seeking career advancement

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of "Technical Resignation" and counting of past service

Rule 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which mandates that forwarding applications for outside posts should be the rule rather than the exception, provided specific conditions (like pending disciplinary proceedings or equivalent rank) are not met

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (2019) 14 SCC 492, establishing that resignation is a right of an employee unless specific legal or disciplinary bars exist

The Tribunal applied the principle of natural justice from Secretary Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, holding that administrative orders must be supported by reasons

DoPT OM dated 17.08.2016, which governs the conditions for "Technical Resignation"

The Tribunal found the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 to be "cryptic" and "lifeless" because it failed to provide valid reasons for denying the NOC

It observed that the applicant did not fall under the restrictive categories of Rule 1401 IREM, as he was moving to a higher grade (Level 2) and faced no disciplinary proceedings

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' argument regarding staff shortage, citing Gauhati High Court precedent that such administrative difficulties cannot be used to block an employee's resignation for career progression

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could not prove he applied for the NOC prior to appearing in the examination; therefore, under the 2016 DoPT OM, his resignation could not be treated as a "Technical Resignation," meaning he would forfeit the benefit of past service

It directed the respondents to accept the applicant's resignation dated 09.06.2025 forthwith

It directed the Chairman, RRB Patna, to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III (Level 2) if otherwise eligible

The Tribunal held that the appointment would be on the basis of a simple resignation without the benefit of past service, as the criteria for technical resignation were not fully met