The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a police officer seeking to resign must comply with the statutory requirement of providing a two-month written notice before the resignation can be accepted. The Court emphasized that a resignation tendered without fulfilling this mandatory condition is invalid and cannot be acted upon.
The case involved a Sub-Inspector who joined the Uttar Pradesh Police in 2017 after previously serving in the Delhi Police. He submitted his resignation in December 2017, citing medical reasons and his desire to rejoin the Delhi Police. However, his resignation did not include the required two-month notice nor was it unconditional. Despite this, the resignation was accepted by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, in January 2018. Later, in 2022, the Senior Superintendent of Police directed the recovery of training costs and salary paid to the officer, prompting him to challenge the order in the High Court.
While examining the case, the Court referred to Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861, and Regulation 505 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. These provisions explicitly require that a police officer intending to resign must submit a written notice of not less than two months and obtain approval from the competent authority before the resignation can take effect. Regulation 505 also mandates that the officer must not withdraw from duty until the resignation is formally accepted and any financial obligations to the government or police funds are settled.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s resignation was conditional and lacked the mandatory notice period. Moreover, it was linked to his intention to join another force, which the Court found to be contrary to the principles governing resignation from a disciplined service. The Court noted that such conditions undermine the statutory safeguards ensuring stability and discipline within the police force.
As the resignation did not satisfy the legal requirements, the Court held that its acceptance by the authorities was invalid. The Court further noted that the officer could not be penalized for recovery based on a resignation that was never validly accepted. Consequently, the High Court quashed the orders that had accepted the resignation and directed recovery of training costs and salary.
The Court ordered that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and salary arrears. The authorities were instructed to implement the decision within four months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
This ruling reinforces that resignation from the police force is not merely a matter of personal choice but a process governed by statutory discipline. Officers must follow the prescribed procedure, including giving due notice and ensuring unconditional intent. The decision serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is essential to maintain accountability and prevent disruption in the functioning of disciplined services like the police.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.