High Court · 2025

anot her, 1987 ( Supp.) SCC 228; J.N. Srivast ava v. Union of I ndia and anot her, ( 1998) 9 SCC 559; Sham bhu Murari Sinha v. Proj ect and Developm ent I ndia and anot her, ( 2000) 5 SCC 621: and Secret ary Technical Educat ion, U.P. and ot hers v. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and anot her, ( 2007) 4 SCC 492.

5. Mr. Arvind Vashist ha, learned senior counsel appearing t he Cant onm ent Board subm it s t hat learned Single Judge overlooked t he st and t aken by t he Cant onm ent Board in paragraph no. 7 of t he count er affidavit where it was st at ed t hat t he applicat ion m ade by respondent no. 1 for wit hdrawal of his resignat ion is not available on record in t he office Chief Execut ive Officer; t here is neit her any ent ry regarding such applicat ion in t he relevant regist er nor t he applicat ion dat ed 22.12.2005 for wit hdrawal of his resignat ion, as enclosed wit h t he writ pet it ion cont ains t he receiving/ st am p of t he office, which creat es doubt on t he aut hent icit y of t he docum ent . He furt her subm it s t hat , on 22.12.2005, when request for wit hdrawal of resignat ion was allegedly accept ed by t he Chief Execut ive Officer; respondent no. 1 was absent from 2 his dut ies, and in fact , he was not at t ending t o his dut ies since 05.12.2005.

6. We are not im pressed by t he subm ission m ade by learned senior counsel. I t is not t he case of Cant onm ent Board t hat t he docum ent , which enclosed as Annexure- 6, is fake or bogus docum ent . Annexure- 6 t o t he writ pet it ion is an applicat ion dat ed

22.12.2005 m ade by respondent no. 1, whereby he request ed t he Chief Execut ive Officer, Cant onm ent Board, Roorkee t o perm it him t o wit hdraw his resignat ion. The t hen Chief Execut ive Officer Ms. Hina Arora, m ade an endorsem ent on t he said applicat ion, t he sam e day, whereby t he request m ade by respondent no. 1 for wit hdrawal of resignat ion was accept ed. Aft er grant of perm ission t o wit hdraw his resignat ion, t he resignat ion t endered by respondent no. 1 earlier on 26.09.2005 could not have been accept ed, as was accept ed by t he Chief Execut ive Officer on

30.01.2006.

7. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for quashing t he order dat ed 30.01.2006. The st and t aken by t he Cant onm ent Board in paragraph nos. 7 & 9 falls short of disput ing t he genuineness of t he docum ent enclosed as Annexure- 6 t o t he writ pet it ion. The view t aken in im pugned j udgm ent is in consonance wit h law of t he land.

8. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference. The special appeal fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 22.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f4 87df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819D A875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 3