Resignation Of Judicial Officer Cannot Be Accepted If Withdrawn Before Formal Approval By Appointing Authority: Orissa High Court

"In the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor." Orissa High Court, in a ruling dated September 10, 2026, held that a judicial officer retains the right to withdraw their resignation at any point before it is formally accepted by the competent appointing authority.

A division bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that where the petitioner had withdrawn her resignation prior to the issuance of the government notification, the subsequent acceptance of that resignation was rendered legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, had submitted her resignation on November 29, 2022, citing personal distress due to the inability to provide medical treatment for her autistic son at her place of posting. On December 21, 2022, she formally withdrew this resignation, citing a change in circumstances and a desire to continue in service. However, the State Government, acting on an earlier recommendation of the High Court, issued a notification on January 2, 2023, accepting her resignation and relieving her from service.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a resignation tendered by a judicial officer can be unilaterally accepted after an unequivocal intimation of withdrawal has been communicated to the authorities, and whether the resignation in question was voluntary or submitted under duress.

Court Defines Voluntary Nature Of Resignation

The bench underscored that the resignation was submitted under extreme personal duress. The Court noted that the authorities failed to address the petitioner’s earlier representations regarding the lack of specialized medical facilities for her son in Hindol. Consequently, the bench declared that the resignation was not voluntary. The Court observed, "For the reasons above, we are of the view that the resignation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2022 was not voluntary at all and it was under compelling situation and duress."

Appointing Authority And The Resignation Process

 The Court clarified that under the Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007, read with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is the recommending body, while the Governor of the State remains the appointing and accepting authority. The bench noted that while the High Court’s Standing Committee had deferred the petitioner’s request, it failed to inform the Governor or the Law Department of the subsequent withdrawal application filed by the petitioner on December 21, 2022.

Failure To Communicate Subsequent Developments

The bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Registry’s failure to apprise the State Government of the petitioner’s withdrawal application before the Governor’s approval was obtained on December 31, 2022. The Court noted that the then Chief Justice had directed the matter to be placed before the Full Court for consideration of the withdrawal, yet this information was withheld from the appointing authority. The Court remarked that the authorities kept the State government "in the dark" regarding the withdrawal, which rendered the subsequent acceptance notification bad in law.

"If a government servant who had submitted a resignation sends an intimation in writing to the appointing authority withdrawing his earlier letter of resignation before its acceptance by the appointing authority, the resignation will be deemed to have been automatically withdrawn."

Judicial Precedent On Withdrawal Of Resignation

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, in a concurring opinion, supplemented the reasoning by drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra. He emphasized that for judicial officers, the resignation becomes effective only upon formal acceptance by the competent authority. Since the petitioner withdrew her resignation on December 21, 2022, and the formal acceptance notification was only issued on January 2, 2023, the resignation stood withdrawn as a matter of law.

The Court ultimately quashed the notification dated January 2, 2023. While the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential service benefits effective from January 3, 2023, the Court denied her back wages, as she had voluntarily offered to forego the same for the period she did not render service.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2026