2025:UHC:6399-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 787 of 2018 22 July, 2025 President Cantonment Board Roorkee Haridwar & another --Appellants Versus Dinesh Kumar & others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT There is delay of 6 days in filing this Special Appeal. 2. Reasons furnished in the Delay Condonation Application are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the Special Appeal. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 15459 of 2018) is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. 3. This intra-court appeal is filed by Cantonment Board, Roorkee, challenging judgment dated 25.07.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 818 of 2007. By the said judgment, the order dated 30.01.2006, whereby resignation tendered by 1 2025:UHC:6399-DB respondent no. 1 was accepted, was quashed on the ground that respondent no. 1 had made request for withdrawal of the resignation and his request for such withdrawal was accepted by the competent authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, on 22.12.2005. 4. For allowing the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1, learned Single Judge relied upon the law declared by Apex Court in the case of Union of India etc. v. Gopal Chandra Mishra & others, etc. AIR 1978 SC 694; Balram Gupta v. Union of India and another, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 228; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and another, (1998) 9 SCC 559; Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and another, (2000) 5 SCC 621: and Secretary Technical Education, U.P. and others v. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and another, (2007) 4 SCC 492. 5. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board submits that learned Single Judge overlooked the stand taken by the Cantonment Board in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit where it was stated that the application made by respondent no. 1 for withdrawal of his resignation is not available on record in the office Chief Executive Officer; there is neither any entry regarding such application in the relevant register nor the application dated 22.12.2005 for withdrawal of his resignation, as enclosed with the writ petition contains the receiving/ stamp of the office, which creates doubt on the authenticity of the document. He further submits that, on 22.12.2005, when request for withdrawal of resignation was allegedly accepted by the Chief Executive Officer; respondent no. 1 was absent from 2 2025:UHC:6399-DB his duties, and in fact, he was not attending to his duties since 05.12.2005. 6. We are not impressed by the submission made by learned senior counsel. It is not the case of Cantonment Board that the document, which is enclosed as Annexure-6, is fake or bogus document. Annexure-6 to the writ petition is an application dated 22.12.2005 made by respondent no. 1, whereby he requested the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Roorkee to permit him to withdraw his resignation. The then Chief Executive Officer Ms. Hina Arora, made an endorsement on the said application, the same day, whereby the request made by respondent no. 1 for withdrawal of resignation was accepted. After grant of permission to withdraw his resignation, the resignation tendered by respondent no. 1 earlier on 26.09.2005 could not have been accepted, as was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer on 30.01.2006. 7. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for quashing the order dated 30.01.2006. The stand taken by the Cantonment Board in paragraph nos. 7 & 9 falls short of disputing the genuineness of the document enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The view taken in impugned judgment is in consonance with law of the land. 8. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The special appeal fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.07.2025 Navin 3 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f4 87df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819D A875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.29 09:48:52 +05'30'