He Resigned, Took His Dues, And Changed His Mind Four Months Later
An Assistant Registrar argued his resignation was never validly accepted. The Supreme Court has explained what ratification does, and set his reinstatement aside.
The Court held that ratification by the competent authority validates the acceptance from the beginning, and that a resignation takes effect on the date it is accepted by the appointing authority — communication is not a condition of its efficacy. The acceptance of 22 November 2018 was effective in law that day. The University's appeal was allowed, the direction for reinstatement set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
- Ratification relates back. An act done without authority, once adopted by the body that had it, is treated as valid from its inception.
- Acceptance, not communication, is the moment. The notice period only fixed when he was actually relieved.
- Withdrawal before relieving is the normal rule, but the authority keeps a discretion to refuse, with reasons recorded and communicated.
- His own words were used — he had written that he was not interested in working there any more.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 797
- Reported
- [2026] 8 S.C.R. 371
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024
- Decided
- 4 August 2026
- Outcome
- University's appeal allowed; reinstatement set aside, writ petition dismissed
The sequence
The Assistant Registrar tendered his resignation, sought a waiver of the notice period, and asked that it be accepted from an earlier date. The then Vice-Chancellor accepted it and he was relieved.
He accepted his no-dues certificate, last pay certificate and experience certificate.
Four months later he sought to withdraw the resignation, saying it had neither been accepted nor ratified by the Board of Management, the competent authority under Section 23(2)(ix). The Board then ratified the acceptance and refused the withdrawal.
A Single Judge ordered reinstatement with full back wages. A Division Bench affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages because he had taken up other employment.
What ratification did
Ratification, in its ordinary legal sense, is the confirmation or adoption by a person or body possessing the requisite authority of an act earlier done on its behalf without such authority, or done irregularly — so that the act is treated as valid from its inception.
A resignation accepted in the first instance by someone not clothed with authority to accept it may nonetheless become a consummated and irrevocable transaction.
Timing, and the refusal to allow withdrawal
A resignation takes effect on the date it is accepted by the appointing authority. There is no requirement of communication as a condition of efficacy, and effectiveness does not wait for the notice period to run out. The notice period regulated only his actual relieving date.
His withdrawal letter came after the resignation had already taken legal effect. Paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum of 11 February 1988 recognises withdrawal before actual relieving as the normal rule, but expressly preserves the authority's discretion to refuse, subject to reasons being recorded and communicated.
The authority's conclusion — that he had no genuine intention of continuing, his request having followed immediately on his selection for a deputation elsewhere — was a plausible and rational view. A writ court will not substitute its own assessment of the sufficiency of such reasons absent mala fides or perversity.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can I withdraw my resignation before I am relieved?
Usually yes, but the competent authority retains a discretion to refuse, recording and communicating its reasons.
Does acceptance have to be communicated to me to be valid?
No. The Court held communication is not a condition of the efficacy of an acceptance already made by the competent authority.
Advising an employee who wants a resignation back
- Fix the date of acceptance first. After that date the question is discretion, not right.
- Do not treat non-communication as a lifeline; the Court held it does not keep the resignation alive.
- Watch what the client signs afterwards — no-dues, last pay and experience certificates all told against him here.
- Where the request follows a new job offer, expect the authority to say the intention to continue was never genuine.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 797, [2026] 8 S.C.R. 371, Civil Appeal No. 9308 of 2024, decided 4 August 2026 by Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in