by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Oct 25, 2025 | Service Matters
Can officer below the appointing authority accept resignation? I am working as an inspector in the Uttar Pradesh police. Due to some misunderstanding with the superintendent of the police, I served my resignation. That is accepted by him and sent to the police headquarters for releasing my retirement benefits.
When I came to know that my resignation was promptly accepted by him I immediately withdrew my resignation. But the officer refused. Now I have received a letter from the finance controller that my pension and other dues have been prepared on the basis of last salary drawn.
Actually I sent my resignation in anguish and under pressure. It was not voluntary so I withdrew it after thirty five days. The kaptan was very much eager to take stringent against me so he exerted pressure upon me. He has stopped my increment. In the frustrated state of mind I gave my resignation. Now I want to save my career and protect my family from my bad decision. Please suggest how to handle this issue?
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
Prima facie, the acceptance of your resignation by the officer concerned appears to be patently incompetent and legally untenable. It is a settled principle of law that only the appointing authority is vested with the power to accept a resignation. In the instant case, the appointing authority, contingent upon your rank, is either the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) or the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
If you hold the rank of Sub-Inspector, the DIG, being the appointing authority, is exclusively empowered to accept your resignation. Conversely, if you are a Police Inspector, the resignation must be accepted by the IGP. Under no circumstances does the Superintendent of Police (SP) possess the jurisdiction to accept a resignation, as such an act falls squarely outside their legal competence.
The SP was duty-bound to forward your resignation to the competent authority for due consideration. The purported acceptance of your resignation by the SP is manifestly ultra vires, as it exceeds the scope of their authority. Consequently, the order issued by the SP is illegal per se, devoid of legal sanctity, and a nullity in the eyes of the law. It follows, therefore, that you remain in service, as the impugned order lacks any legal effect. You should also challenge the order passed by SP for stopping increment. This is a separate issue and not dependent upon your resignation.
In light of the foregoing, it is strongly recommended that you challenge the validity of the SP’s order and seek its quashing. You may approach the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the annulment of the SP’s order on the grounds of jurisdictional overreach and violation of due process. Given that you have withdrawn your resignation and the same was accepted without lawful authority, the competent authority is legally bound to reject the resignation letter. It is trite law that a resignation must be voluntary and accepted in strict adherence to the prescribed legal process.
Under the present circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court is likely to quash the impugned order and may issue directions for your reinstatement in service, along with consequential benefits. You are well within your rights to seek appropriate relief, and prompt legal action is advised to safeguard your interests and rectify this miscarriage of justice.
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Aug 14, 2025 | Service Matters
Quashing criminal trial on the ground of exoneration in departmental proceedings is possible or not? I am a government servant and accused in a criminal trial going on under section 13 and 7 of the Prevention Corruption Act along with Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The proceeding was initiated by the anti corruption department along with the local police. They had information that some police personnel are engaged in smuggling of contrabanned goods in Nepal Border. I was posted as the circle officer and now entitled for promotion. Due to said criminal trial my promotion is pending and delayed by the DPC. The disciplinary authority has exonerated me from all charges because they have not been proved by the evidence adduced against me. When the said offence was committed I was in training for fifteen days in PTC, Moradabad. Ten delinquent police officers were not under my administrative control. The evidence failed to establish any connection with me and no money was ever recovered from me. On these grounds the departmental proceedings were dropped by exonerating me from the allegation.
Now I want to quash the criminal trial which is carried out against me and ten other accused. I filed a petition in the high court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the trial on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in the departmental proceedings and charges in both proceedings are the same. Evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings is nearly the same hence, there is no likelihood to hold the petitioner guilty in the criminal proceedings. Petition was admitted and notice was sent to the opposite party. In the last hearing the court has the view that the petition is liable to be quashed on the basis that criminal and disciplinary proceedings are distinct and separate. My advocate sought a date to produce rulings at this point. From the observation of the court it seems that it is willing to dismiss my petition.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The observation of the Hon’ble High Court is correct. Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely or solely on the ground that the charges in both proceedings are the same and the accused has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings.
It is settled law that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is different from that in criminal proceedings. In departmental proceedings, preponderance of probability is sufficient to prove or disprove the guilt of the delinquent officer, whereas in criminal proceedings, the charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same standard of proof and the same principles of appreciation of evidence apply in both proceedings.
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012), the Supreme Court held that it is not a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings that, on the same charges or allegations, the accused has been exonerated in departmental proceedings.
Criminal proceedings may only be quashed on their own merits. In the landmark Bhajan Lal case, the Supreme Court laid down seven grounds on which the High Court may quash a criminal proceeding, such as:
- No offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint
- Absence of evidence to prove the allegations
- Proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions, etc.
If your case falls within any of these recognised grounds—such as no offence being made out or lack of evidence—then the High Court may quash the pending criminal proceeding. However, acquittal in departmental proceedings, by itself, is not a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal case. Quashing criminal trial merely on the ground of exoneration in departmental proceedings is not possible.
Related: Right to promotion when departmental proceedings are pending
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Aug 12, 2025 | Service Matters
Compassionate appointment refused due to sound financial condition of dependent of deceased employee. My father was an engineer in the irrigation department. He died in 2021 when he was in service. A promotion to the post of executive engineer was pending at the time of his death. His batch mates and juniors were promoted but due to death my father's service benefits are not provided to us according to his promotional scale. I applied for the compassionate appointment in the irrigation department within time. In that application I submitted my educational qualification and my past service in the IT Sector.
The office demanded to produce ITR for past three years and a declaration about the assets which I have accrued in my service. That service was private and I was working in Haryana. Finally my application for compassionate appointment as per the dying in harness rule has been refused by the department on the ground that my financial condition is very sound and I have past experience in the IT Sector. However, my financial situation is sound but that job was not permanent and there was no certainty or protection of job in comparison to the government service. So I think the order of office is wrong, I want to challenge the order in High Court.
Asked from: Chhattisgarh
Appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rule is an exception to the general method of appointment in government service. There is no competitive examination in relation to compassionate appointments. The primary objective of such an appointment is to protect the family of a deceased employee from destitution and financial crisis, rather than to provide regular employment as a matter of right.
If the dependents of a deceased employee are facing financial hardship in maintaining the family, they may be considered for compassionate appointment. However, it is not mandatory that every dependent is entitled to such an appointment.
In State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, while considering a request for appointment under the dying-in-harness rule, the employer should assess the dependent’s financial condition by examining:
- The income of the family
- The liabilities of the family
- Terminal benefits received
- Age, dependency, and marital status of its members
- Income from other sources
From the records, it appears that based on your past employment and earning capacity, your financial condition is sound, and you are not dependent upon the earnings of your deceased father. Your mother has received the retiral benefits and is also receiving a family pension.
In these circumstances, it is unlikely that you will be granted a compassionate appointment. However, if your mother wishes to seek such an appointment, she may apply for it. Her case would fall under different criteria, as she was entirely dependent upon her husband’s income and has no other source of livelihood. Therefore, her chances of securing a compassionate appointment are significantly higher than yours. In the prevailing circumstances compassionate appointment refused due to sound financial condition seems, to some extent, correct.
Related: Promotion is denied even after quashing punishment order
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jul 31, 2025 | Property Dispute
How to protect the property of a lunatic brother? He is twenty-two years old and not able to understand anything. My father has died and my mother is a homemaker. There is agricultural land in my village and a house in the city. All these properties were devolved upon my mother, brother and me. Now I am going to join the service so my mother and brother will live in the village. You know that some cunning persons in our village may attempt to take undue advantage of my brother's mental condition. However, he does not go out of the house but my mother cannot keep whole time watch on him. So I want to protect my property and also the interest of my brother.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
Your brother is of unsound mind; therefore, it is necessary to obtain a formal declaration from the competent court regarding his mental condition. You should initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912.
As per Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, the District Judge is empowered to conduct an inquisition upon receiving an application, in order to ascertain whether the person is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself or his affairs. If the court is satisfied that the person is indeed of unsound mind, it may declare him a lunatic under law.
Following such a declaration, the court can proceed under Section 63 to appoint a guardian for the person and a manager for his property. As a real brother, you are legally eligible to file such an application and also to be appointed as guardian/manager. You should follow these steps to protect the property of your lunatic brother:
- Initiate proceedings before the District Judge under the Lunacy Act.
- Obtain a medical examination of your brother by a registered medical practitioner or psychiatrist. The medical report particularly concerning IQ level and mental capacity will significantly strengthen your case.
- After the court's declaration, seek amendment of land records (Khatauni) by inserting a remark that the tenure-holder (your brother) is of unsound mind. This serves as a protective measure to prevent any fraudulent alienation of agricultural land.
Once appointed as the guardian/manager, you will have the legal authority to manage both the personal and property-related matters of your brother, thereby safeguarding his interests.
It is essential to follow this legal procedure in order to protect your brother’s welfare and prevent potential misuse or alienation of his property. Once the declaration and appointment are secured, you will be able to act in his best interest, both legally and administratively.
Related: Joint Hindu Family
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jul 7, 2025 | Property Dispute
Landlord is not executing the sale deed of tenanted premises and filed a suit for eviction. He has taken 75% sale consideration in advance and extended the deadline for execution of sale on two occasions. His daughter's marriage was fixed therefore, he wanted to extend the time for the execution of the sale deed. Actually the landlord demanded a 10% sale amount as an earnest money. When I paid that amount then again he contacted me and demanded some more sale consideration because he needed money for the marriage of his daughter. Then I transferred seventy lakh rupees in his bank account through NEFT. After getting seventy five percent of the sale amount he solemnised his daughter's marriage.
After one month of marriage ceremony he served a notice to vacate the premises on the ground of non payment of rent for more than ten months. Actually it was decided that I will not pay rent after giving earnest money. Then I stopped paying rent. He is in contact with another buyer so he wanted to kick me out and go with him. He filed an eviction suit, in that suit I admitted that I have been his tenant since February 2016. On this very ground the court decided the case and totally overlooked that there is an agreement to sell and 75% sale consideration has been paid to the landlord.
Asked from: Gujarat
In the said civil suit, you should have filed a counterclaim seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell. The landlord had entered into an agreement to sell the tenanted premises and had already received approximately 75% of the sale consideration. Consequently, he became legally bound to execute the sale deed in your favour.
It appears that the trial court primarily based its judgment on the admission made by the defendant (tenant) in the written statement, wherein the tenant acknowledged his legal status as a tenant and failed to submit any proof of payment of rent for the past ten months. On this basis, the court invoked Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the court to pronounce judgment based on admission.
While it is true that a court may decree a suit based on a clear admission made by the defendant, it is equally important to note that this provision is discretionary, not mandatory. The trial court is obligated to examine all relevant circumstances and ensure that justice is not denied merely due to procedural admissions.
In your case, there is sufficient documentary evidence to establish that:
- The landlord entered into an agreement to sell the tenanted property,
- He received 75% of the total sale consideration in advance, and
- He sought extensions for the execution of the sale deed on two separate occasions.
These facts strongly suggest that the current suit for eviction was filed with the intent to frustrate your legal rights as the proposed purchaser of the property and to circumvent the agreement to sell.
Therefore, you are advised to file an appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court. In the appeal, you should specifically raise the following grounds:
- That the trial court erroneously invoked Order XII Rule 6 CPC based solely on admission of tenancy status, without appreciating the existence of a binding agreement to sell.
- That the matter involved disputed questions of fact and required a full trial with evidentiary evaluation.
- That the judgment failed to consider the bonafide contractual rights arising out of the agreement to sell and was passed on misappreciation or non-consideration of material facts.
Given the facts and the legal position, the appeal has strong merit and a high probability of success, as the trial court appears to have improperly exercised discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The trial court has completely overlooked the fact that the landlord is not executing the sale deed of tenanted premises after receiving substantial part of consideration in advance from the tenant.
Related:
