Uttarakhand High Court
The Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 24 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6557-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.341 of 2023
The Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Maneesh
Bisht, learned counsel.
Counsel for State/ respondent : Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned
nos.1 and 2 Additional Advocate General.
Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel.
Counsel for the caveator : Mr. A.K. Tripathi, learned counsel
through VC.
JUDGMENT :
(per HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. Aditya
Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
2. The case in a nutshell is that the services of
the third respondent came to be terminated by the
petitioner, on the premise that the respondent no.3 had
tendered her resignation, and that the said resignation
came to be accepted in terms of Rule 26 of The
Kurmanchal Nagar Bank Ltd. Staff Service Rules 1993,
(for short “The Rules”), produced at running Page No.
1
2025:UHC:6557-DB
292 of the paper-book. Rule 26 of the Rules reads as
under:-
“26. RESIGNATION:
(a) A permanent employee who desires to leave the service
of the Bank shall give three month’s clear notice in writing
of his intention to do so. In the absence of such notice, he
shall be liable to pay three months salary in lieu of such
notice.
Provided that when an employee gives notice for leaving
the service of the Bank, the Bank may at its discretion
accept it with immediate effect or any time before expiry of
the notice period, without paying wages for the remaining
period of notice.
Provided further that, an employee’s resignation will not be
effective during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding
against him, unless accepted by the Bank in writing.
(b) In case an employee leaves the service of the Bank
without giving such notice or before the expiry of the
notice period, the Bank will be entitled to recover from the
employee, amount pertaining to the notice period or
unexpired notice period, from any salary or provident fund
or bonus or any other amount due to him, as the case may
be.
In case an employee who has been sent for any training/
course by the Bank, resigns within five years from the date
on which he joins back his duties in the Bank, after his
training, he shall be liable to refund the pay or allowance
or both, if any drawn during the course of his training and
also make good the training expenses. In case of any
contract having been signed by the employee with the
Bank before going on training, the terms and conditions of
the contract shall prevail.
The employee shall however be entitled for the pay for the
period specified in the order of acceptance of resignation
for making over charge of records, books and property of
the Bank in his custody but if he makes delay in handing
over complete charge he shall not be entitled to the pay for
the excess period
d) If any book or property of the Bank are found to have
been detained by the employee he shall continue to be
liable for the same in spite of the acceptance of his
resignation
Note: The expression ‘month’ used in this rule shall be
period of thirty days commencing on the date immediately
following the date on which the notice is received by the
appointing authority.”
2
2025:UHC:6557-DB
3. We have extracted the Rule for a better and
more convenient appreciation of the alleged letter of the
resignation dated 15.07.2015, which reads as under:-
“To,
The Secretary, The Kurmanchal Sahkari Bank Ltd.,
HO, Tallital, NainitalThrough: The Chairman
Subject: Resignation from the Service of the BankDear Sir,
This has reference to the subject
It was my privilege to join this esteemed team and with
great enthusiasm I joined in HR function to work through
mutual learning and experience.
However, as experienced the role that was expected was
more in IR than HR and accordingly since my joining I
was entrusted with the assignments related to IR with
having very little opportunity to add value in HR function
which questioned the function credibility in the system.
The role delivered as per Management directives had
further infuriated the team to the extent that I received
derogatory letters from some of the employees, my
personal credentials that were shared with the bank
while taking employment were all made public throught
press release which really harassed me personally and
socially. However still as a professional, without getting
deterred and in spite of my nascent tenure with the
bank, I tried my best to put in all efforts towards
resolving old employee related issues. But as observed
since last 3-4 months the way I am being treated by you
is not at all acceptable as it is against professional
culture and dignity. I am even left confused about the
job clarity as without even my knowledge employees are
inducted and assigned task pertaining to HR and as
HOD-HR. I have no clue to it. At the end, the job which
is not even in my notice I am held accountable for the
same for which then I am harassed by you in front of
other employees for no fault of mine. This really makes
me tensed and put in embarrassing situation and as a
result I am not able to concentrate on my work.
Given this attitude and the environment I feel that you
do not want me continue in the Bank hence I am finding
it very difficult to perform my job. With this I am left
with no other option so regretfully it is to state that in
the interest of my professional and personal dignity, it
will be appropriate to resign from the services of the
bank and prefer sitting at home till I had a suitable
opportunity for myself. I am thankful to the Chairman3
2025:UHC:6557-DBand Directors for having faith in me and giving me an
opportunity and support to serve the BankWith Regards,
(Seema Rehman)
HOD-HR
15.07.2015
4. The concluding paragraph is relied upon by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to contend
that the same constitutes a desire to resign, and hence
the invocation of Rule 26 is fully justified.
5. A reading of the above would show that there
is neither a notice period mentioned, nor a categorical
tendering of resignation. If the letter is read in toto, the
impression it gives, is that, it is not a letter tendering
resignation, but a letter complaining of the harassment
the lady employee was facing in the workplace. The
third respondent has stated that, if the situation does
not improve, she would be better off, and it would also
be in the interest of professional and personal dignity to
resign from the bank, and it does not state that she is
resigning from the services of the Bank. This opinion of
ours is fortified by the reminder letter dated 06.11.2015.
The said letter reads as under:-
4
2025:UHC:6557-DB
06/11/2015
To.
The Secretary,
The Kurmanchal Sahkari Bank Limited,
HO, Tallital, NainitalSubject: Letter dated 15/07/2015
Dear Sir,
This has reference to the subject please.
Through the said letter, I had mentioned my
grievances to your good self which still I am facing
being employee of the bank and due to which I
submitted my conditional resignation. As already
mentioned in my said letter, there is no
improvement and on the contrary the prevailing
situations are further deteriorated which is
detrimental to my professionalism and personal
dignity and I strongly feel apprehensive for my
professional safety and credibility.
It is humbly reminded that even after lapse of more
than three and a half months time period post
submitting my said letter, I have not received your
reply against it and same is still awaited please.
Thanking you in anticipation please
Kind Regards,
(Seema Rehman)
Manager-HR,
The Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd.
HO, Tallital, Nainital
Enclosure – As mentioned above the said Letter dated
15/07/2015
6. Another reminder letter dated 21.11.2015
reads as under:-
To,
The Secretary,
The Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd.,
HO, Nainital.
21-11-2015
Dear Sir,
This has reference to the time period that the
undersigned had spent till date in the Bank and the
experience that I had undergone during the tenure. Sir,
with due respect if is humbly submitted that basically as
an employer you are also not only responsible to see
your employees by way of payment of salary but also
his/her welfare. The Human Relation aspect is also to be
take in account in particular while dealing with a female
5
2025:UHC:6557-DBemployee but it is unfortunate that in my case it did not
happen so. The modesty of a lady which has got highest
marks in the society has not been maintained by you
which has given me irreparable losses.
I had joined with you in January, 2015 and I was more
or less all the times engaged in Industrial Relations work
(though, it was not my job). As already brought in your
kind notice from time to time, that at times the jobs to
be done with the aspect of HR (which was my job) are
being delivered without my notice and consent. Further,
the jobs which were being performed by me in the
interest of the employees and Bank towards streamlining
the function in terms of legalities and legacies have not
been appreciated and on the reverse my explanations
had been called from time to time for no reasons
therefor.
Considering all these facts, I had tendered my
resignation on 15-07-2015 and according to the service
conditions a decision was a must on my letter on your
part by 14-10-2015 but it was not done so because of
the reasons best known to you. Hence vide my letter
dated 06-11-2015 I had again requested you for an
appropriate decision on my letter which is still awaited
on your part.
Atlast, I submit that till I am in the job I must be allowed
to work peacefully on the HR aspect peacefully so that
harmony is created and better results are delivered.
Thanking you.
Kind regards,
(Seema Rehman)
Manager- Human Resource
The Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkarı Bank Limited
HO, Nainital”
7. A plain reading of the above letter would state
that there is no improvement in the condition, and in the
concluding paragraph, the third respondent has stated
that she is yet to receive a reply, and she has nowhere
stated, nor asked for a letter of acceptance. A
resignation is complete with tendering and acceptance.
6
2025:UHC:6557-DB
8. On the other hand, the letter speaks that the
third respondent-employee is expecting a reply, i.e.
regarding her statement/ complaint about the vitiated
atmosphere and the environment in the work place.
9. In support of our view, we draw sustenance
from the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Union of
India and others v. Gopal Chandra Misra and
others, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301″, wherein at
paragraph nos. 23 to 26 & 33, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed as under :
“23. Well then, what is the correct connotation of
the expression “resign his office” used by the founding
fathers in proviso (a) to Article 217(1)?
24. “Resignation” in the dictionary sense, means
the spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right. This is
conveyed by the maxim : Resionatio est juris propii
spontanea refutatio (See Earl Jowitt’s Dictionary of
English Law). In relation to an office, it connotes the act
of giving up or relinquishing the office. To “relinquish an
office” means to “cease to hold” the office, or to “loose
hold of the office (cf. Shorter Oxford Dictionary); and to
“loose hold of office”, implies to “detach”, “unfasten”,
“undo or untie the binding knot or link” which holds one
to the office and the obligations and privileges that go
with it.
25. In the general juristic sense, also, the meaning
of “resigning office” is not different. There also, as a rule,
both, the intention to give up or relinquish the
office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment, are
necessary to constitute a complete and operative
resignation (see, e.g. American Jurisprudence, Second
Edn., Vol. 15-A, p. 80), although the act of relinquishment
may take different forms or assume a unilateral or
bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office
and the conditions governing it. Thus, resigning office
necessarily involves relinquishment of the office, which
implies cessation or termination of, or cutting as under
from the office. Indeed, the completion of the resignation
7
2025:UHC:6557-DBand the vacation of the office, are the causal and effectual
aspects of one and the same event.
26. From the above dissertation, it emerges that a
complete and effective act of resigning office is, one which
severs the link of the resignor with his office and
terminates its tenure. In the context of Article 217(1),
this test assumes the character of a decisive test, because
the expression “resign his office” — the construction of
which is under consideration — occurs in a proviso which
excepts or qualifies the substantive clause fixing the
office-tenure of a Judge up to the age of 62 years.
33. Thus considered, it is clear that merely by
writing the letter to the President on May 7, 1977,
proposing to resign with effect from August 1, 1977, the
Judge had not done all which he was required to do to
determine his tenure, of his own volition, under proviso
(a) to Article 217(1). He had not, as yet, resigned his
office on May 7, 1977, itself, he had not done everything
which was necessary to complete the requirement of the
expression “resign his office”. He had not relinquished his
office and thus delinked himself from it. He had not — as
the learned Judges of the High Court have erroneously
assumed — crossed the Rubicon — Rubicon was still afar,
85 days away in the hazy future. At any time, before that
deadline (August 1, 1977) was reached, the Judge could
change his mind and choose not to resign, and withdraw
the communication dated May 7, 1977.
10. In the case on hand also, it is apparent that
the employee intended to resign, if the workplace
atmosphere and environment did not improve, and if the
harassment, she was suffering at the workplace, did not
stop. In fact, in the letter dated 06.11.2015, she
categorically speaks about her “conditional resignation”,
indicating thereby that she would be left with no option,
but to resign from her post, if the harassment at the
workplace did not stop. Further, in the letter dated
21.11.2015, she goes to the extent of complaining of
her modesty not being regarded and respected. In other
8
2025:UHC:6557-DB
words, she is complaining of sexual harassment at the
workplace. From a reading of the abovementioned
paragraphs of the citation referred to supra, it is
apparent that a resignation should be voluntary, and out
of the person’s own free will. The above letters, if
appreciated in the backdrop of the complaints narrated
therein would only go to demonstrate that it is not a
letter of resignation, but a threat to resign, if the
environment in the workplace did not alter.
11. The above reminder letter/representation is
followed by the letter dated 09.05.2016, by the
petitioner’s Management. The letter is signed by the
Secretary of the petitioner-bank, and the same reads as
under:-
Date 09/05/2016
Smt. Seema Rehman
Manager HR,
The Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd.
HO Tallital, Nainital
Ref: Resignation dated 15/07/2015 and reminder
dated 06/11/2015 and 21/11/2015Your letter of resignation along with the
reminders was perused by the competent
authority.
The allegation made by you in your letter of
resignation dated 15/07/2015 was considered
and after due diligence, it was observed that the
allegations leveled by you have lost relevance for
9
2025:UHC:6557-DBthe reasons that during various communications,
you have in writing accepted that you want to
withdraw the letter of complaint against the
employees leveling derogatory remarks against
you as such the issue raised by you no longer
subsists.
That taking into consideration the letters dated
15/07/2015, 06/11/2015 and 21/11/2015
submitted by you, we are of the firm opinion that
you are no more interested in rendering the
services to the bank.
That keeping the interest of the bank, your
resignation is accepted w.e.f. 09/05/2016.
That in view of acceptance of you resignation
your lien in the bank as Manager HR ceases w.e.f.
09/05/2016.
Signature
Secretary”
12. In the un-numbered first paragraph of
Annexure No.13, it is stated that the letter of
resignation, along with reminders, were perused by the
Competent Authority. The reference is to the letters of
resignation dated 15.07.2015 and the reminder letter
dated 06.11.2015 and 21.11.2015, which have been
reproduced above.
13. By the said statement, the Secretary accepts
that he is not the competent authority to terminate the
services of an employee. In the second un-numbered
paragraph, it is stated that the third respondent had
submitted her resignation under the letter dated
15.07.2015. It is further stated that the allegations
10
2025:UHC:6557-DB
leveled by her in the letter dated 15.07.2015 have lost
relevance because subsequently she has accepted to
withdraw the allegations. In the un-numbered third
paragraph, it is stated that, after taking into
consideration letters dated 15.07.2015, 06.11.2015 and
21.11.2015, it is recorded that “we are of the firm
opinion that you are no more interested in rendering the
services to the bank”. The letter is not counter signed
by anybody else, other than the Secretary, and it is
further stated in the un-numbered fourth paragraph that
in the interest of the bank, the resignation dated
09.05.2016 is accepted with effect from 09.05.2016.
14. A plain reading of the letter would disclose
that there is no reference to any resolution of the
governing body or of the staff service committee, which
the learned Senior Counsel would contend is invested
with the powers to appoint and terminate the services of
the bank employees. The letter is as bald as one could
be. No provision – neither in the by-laws, nor in the Act,
or Rules is pointed out, which enables or empowers the
Secretary to terminate the services by accepting a letter
of resignation.
11
2025:UHC:6557-DB
15. Learned Senior Counsel has not been able to
point out any provision, which vests any such powers or
authority in the Secretary to determine the services of
any employee. Be that as it may, as pointed out above,
the alleged letter of resignation, in our opinion, does not
constitute an offer to resign. Resignation is contractual,
and is in two parts: (i) an offer of the employee to
resign and (ii) acceptance of that offer and termination
of the services of the employee.
16. In the instant case, the letter of resignation is
not addressed to the Competent Authority, nor is the
acceptance of the competent authority placed on record.
It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, that
notwithstanding the fact that the acceptance of
resignation was illegal or irregular, the same could not
have been intervened by the Registrar, and that no
authority is vested under the Act in the Registrar to
intervene with the orders of the bank, be it either rightly
or wrongly passed, and set aside the same. He would
take the Court through the provisions of Sections 99(C)
and 126 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act,
and would also place reliance on the judgment of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Special
12
2025:UHC:6557-DB
Appeal No.47 of 2013, “The Uttarakhand Co-
operative Bank Limited Versus State of Uttaranchal
and others”, wherein it has been held that the Registrar
cannot invoke the provisions of Section 126 to
determine and annul any proceedings of the bank, on
the premise that by-laws or regulations have not been
framed.
17. We have no quarrel with the said proposition,
though we are constrained to disagree with the
reasoning set out therein. Be that as it may, a reading
of Section 70 would clearly negate the stand adopted by
the learned Senior Counsel. Sub-section (1) (c) of
Section 70, reads as under:-
“70. Dispute which may be referred to
arbitration.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any law for the time being in force. If
any dispute relating to the constitution,
management or the business of a co-operative
society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary
action taken against a paid servant of a society
arises –
(a)…….
(b)…….
(c) between the society or its committee and any
past committee, any officer, agent or employee or
any past officer, past agent or past employee or
the nominee, heir or legal representative of any
deceased office, deceased agent or deceased
employee of the society; or a.”
18. The dispute between the management and an
officer or employee, or a past employee, is arbitrable by
the Registrar under Section 70. The exception to sub-
13
2025:UHC:6557-DB
section (1) of Section 70, is that the dispute should not
relate to a disciplinary action. The disputes arising out
of the disciplinary action have been taken out of the
ambit of Section 70.
19. Here, in the instant case, admittedly it is not a
case of any disciplinary action having been initiated
against the employee. Even according to the bank, it is
a case of voluntary resignation. In that view, the
contention that the employee could not have approached
the Registrar and ought to have approached the Civil
Court, is without foundation. In fact, Section 71 enables
the Registrar to refer the disputes under Section 70 for
adjudication by arbitration. Further, sub-Section (3) of
Section 70 places an embargo on the dispute being
called in question in any Court. In view of Sub-Section
(1) of Section 70, read with Sub-Section (3) of Section
70, the contention that the Registrar has no authority to
adjudicate the issue or the claim of the employee/ past
employee is unsustainable. It is not in dispute that third
respondent has relied upon on other provisions and
preferred a revision before the State Government and it
is the case of the petitioner that no sufficient opportunity
was given to them but it is fairly admitted that notices
14
2025:UHC:6557-DB
were issued; the records were summoned and the
Government after looking into the records was pleased
to set aside the purported letter of acceptance.
20. The question is whether lack of sufficient
opportunity would be ground enough for this Court to
intervene and set aside the order. From the facts
narrated above, and as demonstrated by the records at
hand, it is clear as daylight that the third respondent
never intended to resign. Rather, it is more in the
nature of a complaint and a threat that if her complaints
are not addressed, she may be forced to explore the
option of a resignation.
21. A reading of Rule 26 of the Rules, as extracted
supra, would demonstrate that a person desiring to
leave the services of the bank is required to convey the
intention, with clear three months’ notice. None of the
letters even speak of putting the bank on notice, much
less a clear three months’ notice. The option to dispense
with the waiting period, or the notice period of three
months, is only conferred on the bank under the first
proviso to Rule 26(a).
15
2025:UHC:6557-DB
22. In that view, we are unable to comprehend, as
to how the Secretary has construed the same as a letter
of resignation. That apart, as recorded above, we find
that no authority under the Rules is invested in the
Secretary to terminate the services of any employee,
much less accept the alleged letter of acceptance.
23. In that view, the entire proceedings smacks of
gross abuse of power by an individual and by a person,
who was incompetent to exercise such authority. If the
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that the order
impugned is vitiated on account of lack of proper
opportunity is accepted and the same is set aside, the
same would result in the revival of an order, which, by
itself, has no legs to stand. In other words, an illegal
order – an order without competence and jurisdiction,
would stand revived, which in our considered opinion is
impressible.
24. In this regard, we place reliance on the ruling
of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1966 SC
828, “Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh and others“. Paragraph 17 of the
same reads as under:
16
2025:UHC:6557-DB
“17. The result of the discussion may be stated thus:
The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located
at Dharmaji gudem. The representatives of the said
village did not comply with the necessary conditions for
such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled
its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do
and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health
Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of
the Government, namely, the order dated March 7,
1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally
passed: the former, because it was made without
giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter,
because the Government had no power under S. 72 of
the Act to review an order made under S. 62 of the Act
and also because it did not give notice to the
representatives of Dharmajigudem village. In those
circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to
interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the
Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court
had quashed the said order, it would have restored an
illegal order – it would have given the Health Centre to
a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the
Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our
view, rightly refused to exercise its extra-ordinary
discretionary power in the circum-stances of the case.”
(underlining by this Court)
25. This position in law has further been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Ajit Singh Bhola and another” reported
in 2004 6 SCC 800 in paragraph 9, wherein, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has been pleased to hold in the last sentence
of the above paragraph as under :
17
2025:UHC:6557-DB
“…….it is well settled that this Court will not
exercise its discretion and quash an order which
appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive
another illegal order”.
26. In that view of the matter, the writ petition
stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt:24th July, 2025
NR/
NITESH
Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d9
5c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb,
RAWAT
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC
0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03
C, cn=NITESH RAWAT
Date: 2025.08.08 14:45:37 +05’30’
18