The Supreme Court resolved a split of decisions on employee resignation, holding that acceptance by an officer without authority becomes valid when ratified by the statutory competent authority, and that the employee cannot later withdraw the resignation or claim back wages.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
- The respondent, B.S. Rawat, was appointed Assistant Registrar (Legal) at Delhi Technological University (DTU) on 23.08.2010.
- He tendered resignation on 19.05.2016, seeking waiver of notice and effective date 31.05.2016.
- The acting Vice-Chancellor, holding additional charge, accepted the resignation on 25.05.2016 and issued no-dues, last-pay and experience certificates.
- Rawat later sought withdrawal of his resignation on 22.09.2016, claiming the acceptance was not ratified by the Board of Management (BOM), the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009.
- The BOM, in its 20th meeting on 26.09.2016, ratified the acceptance and on 03.11.2016 rejected Rawat’s withdrawal request.
Key Facts
- Statutory framework: DTU Act, 2009; Section 23(2)(ix) vests appointment and resignation acceptance power in the BOM.
- Resignation acceptance: Memo dated 25.05.2016 by the acting Vice-Chancellor.
- Ratification: BOM order dated 03.11.2016.
- Subsequent employment: Rawat joined National Institute of Technology, Calicut (NIT C) as Deputy Registrar on 08.02.2017.
- NIT resignation: Conditional resignation letter on 08.11.2018; unconditional resignation accepted on 22.11.2018; relief from notice period; relieved on 11.01.2019.
- Withdrawal attempt: Letter dated 28.11.2018 to NIT C, rejected by order dated 07.01.2019.
Procedural History
- 15.12.2021: Single Judge, Delhi High Court, allowed writ petition W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2019, quashing DTU orders and directing reinstatement with back wages @ 9% p.a.
- 08.08.2022: Division Bench, Delhi High Court, affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages.
- Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024: DTU appealed reinstatement direction.
- Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024: Rawat appealed denial of back wages.
- 01.12.2020: Division Bench, Kerala High Court, dismissed Rawat’s claim for reinstatement and back wages from NIT C.
- Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 625-626 of 2021: Rawat appealed Kerala High Court decision; dismissed by Supreme Court.
- 04.08.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
Relief Sought
- DTU: Set aside reinstatement order and uphold denial of back wages.
- Rawat: Reinstate employment at DTU, award back wages, and overturn NIT C’s dismissal of withdrawal request.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (i) Whether acceptance of Rawat’s resignation by an officer holding only additional charge, but not the statutory competent authority, became valid through subsequent ratification by the Board of Management; and (ii) Whether a resignation, once accepted and ratified, can be withdrawn by the employee before the date of actual relieving.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (DTU)
- The Board of Management is the sole competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix) of the DTU Act to accept resignations; the acting Vice-Chancellor lacked such authority.
- Ratification by the Board confers retrospective validity, rendering the resignation effective from the original acceptance date.
- Rawat’s conduct - accepting the no-dues and experience certificates and securing new employment - demonstrates that the resignation was consummated and cannot be unwound.
- The discretion to refuse withdrawal of an accepted resignation is expressly preserved under the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988.
For the Respondent (Rawat)
- Rawat contended that no document showed acceptance by the competent authority; therefore the resignation remained ineffective.
- He argued that the ratification by the Board could not cure the initial lack of authority.
- He relied on precedents that allow withdrawal of a resignation before relief if acceptance is not communicated.
- Sought reinstatement and back wages on the ground of unlawful termination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first identified the statutory source of authority. Section 23(2)(ix) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 vests in the Board of Management the power to appoint and, by necessary implication, to accept resignations from teaching, administrative and ministerial posts. The acting Vice-Chancellor, holding only additional charge, did not possess this authority. Consequently, the initial acceptance on 25.05.2016 was ultra vires.
The Court then examined the doctrine of ratification. It quoted Black’s Law Dictionary and outlined the maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, emphasizing that ratification by the competent authority makes the earlier unauthorized act valid retrospectively. The Court noted that ratification operates from the date of the original act, not from the date of ratification, and that only the authority empowered to perform the act can ratify it.
"Once ratified, the acceptance related back to 25.05.2016, the date his resignation accepted by the In-charge Vice-Chancellor, there was, in point of law, no resignation left in existence which he could have withdrawn on 22.09.2016."
Applying this principle, the Court held that the Board’s ratification on 26.09.2016 cured the defect in the earlier acceptance, making the resignation effective from 25.05.2016. Rawat’s subsequent conduct - receiving certificates, joining NIT C, and drawing salary - demonstrated reliance on the completed resignation, precluding any later claim of its invalidity.
Regarding the NIT C proceedings, the Court examined Statute 30 of the NIT First Statutes, 2009, which states that resignation takes effect on the date of acceptance by the appointing authority. Acceptance on 22.11.2018 was therefore effective, and the notice period only governed the actual relieving date. The Office Memorandum of 11.02.1988 permits the competent authority to refuse withdrawal, provided reasons are recorded, which the authority duly did.
The Court concluded that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court erred in sustaining reinstatement because it failed to appreciate the retrospective effect of ratification. Conversely, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court correctly applied the statutory provisions and upheld the refusal to allow withdrawal.
The Verdict
- Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024 is allowed; the Delhi High Court order directing reinstatement of Rawrawat is set aside and the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 2611 of 2019 is dismissed.
- Civil Appeal No. 9309 of 2024 is dismissed; the denial of back wages stands.
- Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 625-626 of 2021 is dismissed; the Kerala High Court decision is affirmed.
- No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Competent Authority Must Validate Resignation
- Employers must ensure that resignation acceptance is performed by the authority expressly vested by statute; delegations to officers without such authority are ineffective.
- Any acceptance by an unauthorized officer can be cured only through ratification by the proper authority, and the ratification operates retrospectively.
Ratification Gives Retrospective Validity
- Once the statutory competent body ratifies an earlier unauthorized act, the act is deemed valid from the original date, extinguishing the employee’s right to contest it thereafter.
- Practitioners should advise clients to seek formal ratification promptly if procedural lapses occur.
Withdrawal of Resignation Is Not Automatic
-
Even where resignation has been accepted, the competent authority retains discretion to refuse withdrawal, provided reasons are recorded, as per the Office Memorandum of 11.02.1988.
-
Employees who have acted on the acceptance - such as by taking new employment - are barred from later claiming the resignation was never effective.
-
Actionable takeaways:
- Verify the statutory competent authority before accepting resignation.
- Document any ratification clearly and retain the record.
- Counsel employees that once acceptance is ratified, withdrawal is barred.
- In disputes, focus on the statutory source of authority rather than internal delegation.
