Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010088552023 2025:GAU-AS:11387 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2292/2023 MS. PADMA T VILL-HONENAHALLI, P.O.-RAGIMASALAVADA, DIST-DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA, DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE FROM ASSAM RIFLES TRAINING CENTRE AND SCHOOL, SHUKHOVI, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, P/R/A MILIJULI PATH SATGAON, GUWAHATI-781027, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES HEAD QUARTER DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN-793011 3:THE COMMANDANT ASSAM RIFLES TRAINING CENTRE AND SCHOOL SHUKHOVI DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR V KUMAR, MR. R THADANI,MR B PATHAK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. B SARMA Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 26-08-2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside and quashing the discharge order under No. l.12011/268/Rec/SSC Rally 2018/1499 dated 1st July, 2021 (Annexure-3 to this petition) issued by the Brigadier Commandant of Assam Rifles Training Centre & School, Dimapur (Nagaland). 3. The petitioner was appointed in the Assam Rifles as Recruit (GD/General Duty) Mahila, through a selection process carried out by the Staff Selection Commission. Her date of appointment is 15.03.2021.After such appointment, while the petitioner was undergoing her Basic Military Training, she was unwell with lower abdominal pain and was not recovering at the Unit Hospital. It is her further case that the petitioner requested the respondent authority for leave in order to avail herself a better treatment and instead of granting her leave, the respondent authority had misguided her and fraudulently obtained signature of the petitioner for her voluntary discharge from service on 28.06.2021 and accordingly, discharged her from service by way of issuing the aforesaid impugned order. Though, the petitioner filed a representation for her reinstatement in service, but the authority by its communication dated 27.07.2021 rejected such representation. It is further case of the petitioner that under the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.06.2019 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, resignation can be withdrawn by the Central Government Servant appointed after 31.12.2003. Page No.# 3/7 4. Referring to Clause 2 of the aforesaid OM, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointing authority is permitted to accept the withdrawal of resignation in the public interest, when the resignation is tendered by the Government Servant for some compelling reasons and which does not involve any reflection on his/her integrity, efficiency or conduct and when the request for withdrawal is made for a material change in the circumstances, which originally compelled him/her to tender the resignation. Therefore, according to Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case in hand there was compelling situation of ill health and such circumstance was materially changed, for which she was seeking for withdrawal of the resignation. Therefore, the same ought to have been considered in terms of the aforesaid OM dated 10.06.2019. However, the respondent authority has mechanically rejected her representations in ignorance of the aforesaid OM dated 10.06.2019. 5. Per contra, Ms. Sarma, learned CGC submits that the petitioner submitted a hand written application seeking discharging from service and thereafter, she was interviewed by the Commandant and he explained to her the aftermath disadvantage of discharge, before completion of pensionable service, but the petitioner ignored such advice and insisted to process the application for discharging her from service. It is further stand that there was no public interest in withdrawing such resignation and at this belated stage, the petitioner, who had not even completed the basic training of 9 (nine) months cannot be reinstated, which again will go against the public interest. According to her in terms of Rule 27 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, once resignation is accepted, the authority is not allowed to refuse the same. 6. Perused the pleadings made in this writ petition. 7. The fact remains that the petitioner was provisionally appointed on 15.03.2021 as recruit (GD). One of the terms and conditions of such recruitment was that the petitioner was to successfully complete required training within a stipulated period of 9 months. Page No.# 4/7 8. It was also stipulated in her appointment letter that as per Rule 27 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, the Assam Rifles may permit her to resign from service before completing the terms of her engagement, subject to return of three months pay and allowances drawn and the total cost of training imparted, whichever is higher, however, subject to granting one month grace period for the same from the date of reporting to the Assam Rifles Training Centre & School. 9. The record reveals that the petitioner suffered from lower abdominal pain during physical exertion/running and she was treated at the Armed Force Hospital. Though the hand written resignation letter in original is not annexed by the petitioner, however, the Union of India in its affidavit has brought on record the same, which is quoted hereinbelow:-…. “To, The Commandant No.3 Traing BN Subject:- Application For Discharge Due respect I request you to I do not want to continue this Job. I want to leave this Job with my own will. So please provide my Discharge. PADMA.T AR No.5033597 RANK-Rect (GD) NAME- PADMA.T COMP-DHANSIRI No-3 TRG BN” 10. The record also reveals that such personal request was acceded and it was Page No.# 5/7 recommended for discharge on personal request. It is also reflected that the petitioner was also interviewed at two stages which considered her resignation and thereafter, her discharge from service was recommended. 11. The record further reveals that in the month of September, 2021, the petitioner filed another representation before the Director General of Assam Rifle, Shillong Meghalaya, which shows that according to the petitioner she had take a hasty decision by getting discharge from service of the Assam Rifles for her medical complication, however, after realization of her hasty decision, she tried to rejoin the service and started her journey from her native place with her mother and brother. However, due to illness of her mother, she returned back to her own home for treatment of her mother and she again requested the authorities to let rejoin her in service. Such representation was rejected by the respondent authority by its communication dated 04.01.2022 on the ground that there was no provision to rejoin service after the voluntary discharge. 12. In the present case, the facts which have been narrated hereinabove, the application for discharge was submitted by the petitioner in the month of April, 2021.Such discharge was recommended on personal request on 03.05.2021 and finally such discharge was effected from 01.07.2021.The prayer for reinstatement in service was made subsequently by the petitioner, which was rejected by the communication dated 27.07.2021 for the reason that in the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, there is no provision for reinstatement of a person, who has been discharged from service at his/her own request. Subsequent representation of the petitioner filed in the month of September, 2021 was again rejected on the similar ground. 13. The resignation was accepted in terms of Rule 27 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, which empowers the Central Government to permit any officer of the Force to resign from the service, before completing the terms of engagement, with a further authority to give effect the date of such resignation. 14. The said Rule also envisages the circumstances when such prayer of resignations can be refused. The same being not relevant for the purpose of the present case, this Page No.# 6/7 Court will not deal such power. Such Rule is also made applicable to the subordinate officers and enrolled persons. 15. The authorities have taken a view that under Rule 27 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, no power has been given them to allow withdrawal of resignation and accordingly, they declined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. 16. This Court does not find such an action of the respondents to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of any vested legal right of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with such action. 17. The OM dated 10.6.2019 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that it is a guideline/instruction, which is made applicable, till the time, the statutory rules regarding withdrawal of resignation for such Government Servant are notified. Even if it is assumed that such OM is applicable to the present petitioner, there shall neither be any legal duty of the respondents to accept such resignation under the OM, nor any vested right of the petitioner is there to accept or withdraw such registration. The OM dated 10.06.2019 relied upon by the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, shall also not confer any vested right for reconsideration, inasmuch as, the aforesaid OM is a shape of guidelines. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the given facts of the present case, when the resignation, has been given effect upon its acceptance, the withdrawal application shall have no consequence. 18. Further, in the given facts of the present case, more particularly, in view of the mandate of Rule 27(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, by which the appointing authority, while accepting the resignation is empowered to indicate the date from, which it will take effect, upon the acceptance of the resignation, the cessation of service takes place and in the backdrop of the aforesaid Rule 27, it shall not be open for the petitioner to withdraw the resignation. 19. The allegation made in this writ petition is that the resignation was not voluntary, however, the facts, do not satisfy this Court that such resignation was not voluntary in nature. Page No.# 7/7 20. The fact also remains that the petitioner has decided to resign from her service, during the period of training and in the meantime, more than 3 years, has elapsed. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant