Staff shortage is not a valid ground to withhold resignation or compel an employee to continue service.

The applicant was appointed as a Trackman IV in the N.F. Railway on April 25, 2023

While in service, he applied for the post of Primary Teacher under the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) and appeared for the written examination on July 20, 2024

On September 19, 2024, the applicant requested a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from the Railway authorities

The request for NOC was rejected on February 6, 2025

Subsequently, the applicant submitted his resignation on March 18, 2025, which was also rejected by the competent authority on May 15, 2025, without detailed reasoning

Despite the rejection, the applicant joined the post of School Teacher on May 30, 2025, under the condition that he submit a formal NOC or resignation acceptance letter from the Railways by June 30, 2025, failing which his new appointment would be cancelled

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the applicant’s resignation based on staff shortage and operational exigencies

2. Whether the impugned orders rejecting the NOC and resignation were legally sustainable given their "cryptic" nature and lack of recorded reasons

3. Whether an employee has an inherent right to resign from service in the absence of pending disciplinary proceedings or specific contractual prohibitions

Rule 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which mandates that forwarding applications for outside employment should be the rule rather than the exception, and "public interest" must be interpreted strictly and objectively

Supreme Court precedent in Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (2019), which established that resigning is an employee's right that cannot be denied unless disciplinary proceedings are pending or specific rules prohibit it

Principles of natural justice regarding reasoned orders as established in Secretary Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (2010) and State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008), holding that reasons are the "heartbeat" of every conclusion

DoPT Office Memorandum dated August 17, 2016, regarding the distinction between "Technical Resignation" and ordinary resignation

The Tribunal found that the respondent's rejection orders (dated 06.02.2025 and 15.05.2025) were "cryptic" and lacked valid legal reasoning, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

Regarding the respondents' defense of staff shortage, the Tribunal noted that the Gauhati High Court had previously held in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 that staff shortage is not a valid ground to withhold an employee's resignation

Although the applicant applied for the NOC after appearing for the exam—meaning his resignation could not be categorized as a "Technical Resignation" under the DoPT OM dated 17.08.2016—the Tribunal emphasized that he still maintained an absolute right to resign under the Sanjay Jain doctrine because no disciplinary proceedings were pending

The Tribunal concluded that Rule 1401 of the IREM was intended to prevent hardship to employees and that the respondents had exercised their discretion mechanically and subjectively

It directed the Railway respondents to forthwith accept the applicant’s resignation submitted on March 18, 2025, clarifying that the resignation would not be treated as "technical" and thus carries no benefits of past service

A further direction was issued to Respondent No. 6 (Director of Primary Education, Bihar) to accept the formal resignation letter to be issued by the Railways to ensure the applicant's continued service as a School Teacher

The O.A. was partly allowed with no order as to costs