# Ajeet Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 403
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14825 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52662
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Police Act and Reg. 505 of the Police
Regulations, on its acceptance.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Police Act, 1861 - S. 9 -
U.P. Police Regulation - Reg. 505, first
proviso - Resignation - Recovery of
amount incurred on training and recovery
of salary - Petitioner resigned from the
post of Sub-Inspector of Police to enable
him to join post of Constable in Delhi due
to medical problem - Defective notice -
Two months prior notice before making
the resignation was not complied with -
And the debt prior to resignation was not
discharged - Effect - After enquiry,
though the resignation was accepted, but
recovery was also directed to be made -
Validity challenged :

Held : Section 9 of the Police Act r/w
Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations cast a
duty upon the Police Officer, who seeks
resignation to give a notice of two months of his
intention to resign - Once a request is made for
resignation and is accepted then the employee
cannot turn around and insist that the
resignation should be withdrawn, but here there
is a distinct feature that the notice itself was
defective. Once the notice was defective and
not in conformity with the provisions contained
under Section 9 of the Police Act read with
Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations, then it
could not have been taken notice of. [Paras 16
and 17]

Further held : First proviso to Regulation 505
of the Police Regulations also throws light that
the resignation can only be accepted by the
authority w.e.f. a date subsequent to the date
of expiry of the notice and not prior to it,
meaning thereby that two months notice is to
be given by the police personnel seeking
resignation - Regulation 505 of the Police
Regulation, also adds to one another aspect that
his resignation cannot be accepted until and
unless he fully discharged the debt. Here, the
Court finds that the order dated 22.06.2022
passed by the SSP Meerut, post acceptance of
the resignation on 20.01.2018 on 22.06.2022,
recovery is being sought to be made for
discharge of the debt. Thus, even otherwise, the
resignation could not have been accepted. [Para
21]

(B) Service law - Police Act, 1861 - S. 9 -
U.P. Police Regulation - Reg. 505 -
Resignation - Conditional resignation -
Resignation was made with condition that
the writ petitioner, who seeks resignation
post
acceptance
of
resignation,
be
repatriated or sent to Delhi Police - Effect

Held : As a matter of fact, in the request letter
dated 28.12.2017, there was a condition
mentioned with respect to resignation that the
writ petitioner, who seeks resignation post
acceptance of resignation, be repatriated or sent
to Delhi Police. Same partakes the character of
a
conditional
resignation,
which
is
not
contemplated either in Section 9 of the Police
Act or Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations.
[Para 20] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Satya Paul Kalra v. Deputy Inspector General of
Police, AIR 1964 Alld 121; Dinesh Kumar v.
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commandant 15th Battalion, 1999(3) UPLBEC
2308; Bhaggu Prasad v. State of U.P., 2004(5)
AWC 3930 - referred to.

List of Acts
Police Act, 1861 - S. 9; U.P. Police Regulation -
Reg. 505

List of Keywords
Resignation; Recovery; Amount incurred on
training; Withdrawing of the resignation; Two
months notice; Relieving; Technical resignation;
Detriment;
Repatriation;
Acceptance
of
resignation;
Conditional
resignation;
Consequential benefits.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 20.01.2018 accepting the
resignation of the petitioner and directing
recovery of the amount incurred on training of
the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of
Civil Police and the salary so accorded to him on
the post of Sub-inspector.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Adarsh Singh, Indra
Raj Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi, Ram Prakash
Upadhyaya, Seemant Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : S. K. Pal, Addl.
C.S.C.

## Text

10 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
403
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 403
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No. 14825 of 2018

Ajeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Adarsh Singh, Indra Raj Singh, Prabhakar
Awasthi, Ram Prakash Upadhyay, Seemant
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of the defective notice of resignation, not
in conformity with the provisions of S. 9 of the
Police Act and Reg. 505 of the Police
Regulations, on its acceptance.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Police Act, 1861 - S. 9 -
U.P. Police Regulation - Reg. 505, first
proviso - Resignation - Recovery of
amount incurred on training and recovery
of salary - Petitioner resigned from the
post of Sub-Inspector of Police to enable
him to join post of Constable in Delhi due
to medical problem - Defective notice -
Two months prior notice before making
the resignation was not complied with -
And the debt prior to resignation was not
discharged - Effect - After enquiry,
though the resignation was accepted, but
recovery was also directed to be made -
Validity challenged :

Held : Section 9 of the Police Act r/w
Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations cast a
duty upon the Police Officer, who seeks
resignation to give a notice of two months of his
intention to resign - Once a request is made for
resignation and is accepted then the employee
cannot turn around and insist that the
resignation should be withdrawn, but here there
is a distinct feature that the notice itself was
defective. Once the notice was defective and
not in conformity with the provisions contained
under Section 9 of the Police Act read with
Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations, then it
could not have been taken notice of. [Paras 16
and 17]

Further held : First proviso to Regulation 505
of the Police Regulations also throws light that
the resignation can only be accepted by the
authority w.e.f. a date subsequent to the date
of expiry of the notice and not prior to it,
meaning thereby that two months notice is to
be given by the police personnel seeking
resignation - Regulation 505 of the Police
Regulation, also adds to one another aspect that
his resignation cannot be accepted until and
unless he fully discharged the debt. Here, the
Court finds that the order dated 22.06.2022
passed by the SSP Meerut, post acceptance of
the resignation on 20.01.2018 on 22.06.2022,
recovery is being sought to be made for
discharge of the debt. Thus, even otherwise, the
resignation could not have been accepted. [Para
21]

(B) Service law - Police Act, 1861 - S. 9 -
U.P. Police Regulation - Reg. 505 -
Resignation - Conditional resignation -
Resignation was made with condition that
the writ petitioner, who seeks resignation
post
acceptance
of
resignation,
be
repatriated or sent to Delhi Police - Effect

Held : As a matter of fact, in the request letter
dated 28.12.2017, there was a condition
mentioned with respect to resignation that the
writ petitioner, who seeks resignation post
acceptance of resignation, be repatriated or sent
to Delhi Police. Same partakes the character of
a
conditional
resignation,
which
is
not
contemplated either in Section 9 of the Police
Act or Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations.
[Para 20] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Satya Paul Kalra v. Deputy Inspector General of
Police, AIR 1964 Alld 121; Dinesh Kumar v.
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commandant 15th Battalion, 1999(3) UPLBEC
2308; Bhaggu Prasad v. State of U.P., 2004(5)
AWC 3930 - referred to.

List of Acts
Police Act, 1861 - S. 9; U.P. Police Regulation -
Reg. 505

List of Keywords
Resignation; Recovery; Amount incurred on
training; Withdrawing of the resignation; Two
months notice; Relieving; Technical resignation;
Detriment;
Repatriation;
Acceptance
of
resignation;
Conditional
resignation;
Consequential benefits.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 20.01.2018 accepting the
resignation of the petitioner and directing
recovery of the amount incurred on training of
the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of
Civil Police and the salary so accorded to him on
the post of Sub-inspector.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Adarsh Singh, Indra
Raj Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi, Ram Prakash
Upadhyaya, Seemant Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : S. K. Pal, Addl.
C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri
S.K. Pal, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.

2.
Since
counter
affidavit
and
rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged
between the parties, and the prayer has
been made for disposal of the writ petition,
this Court with the consent of the parties is
proceeding to decide the writ petition at the
admission stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is
that he was initially appointed on the post
of Constable in Delhi Police on 13.01.2020,
however, in the meantime, a recruitment
exercise stood undertaken for filling up the
post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police and
Platoon Commander in PAC in the year
2011. The writ petitioner appeared in the
said selection process, and he was selected,
he was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Civil
Police on 31.08.2017. On 28.12.2017, the
writ petitioner had addressed a letter to the
Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range,
Meerut, second respondent to relieve him
from the post of Sub-Inspector, Delhi
Police enabling him to submit his joining
on the post of Constable in Delhi Police
due to medical problem and then the
Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range,
Meerut, second respondent directed the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut to
do the needful in view of the application
dated 28.12.2017. The Inspector General of
Police, Meerut Range, Meerut, second
respondent issued a letter dated 03.01.2018
to the S.S.P. Meerut while referring to the
application of petitioner on 28.12.2017
with respect to relieving him from the
police of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police. The
S.S.P. Meerut fourth respondent, issued a
letter dated 09.01.2018 to the Circle
Officer, Meerut to submit a report after
making enquiry on the basis of the affidavit
of the petitioner and his family member on
non-judicial stamp paper with regard to the
issue of recovery, which is to be made from
the petitioner against the amount being paid
on training to the petitioner and the salary
paid in favour of the petitioner and the said
report was directed to be submitted within a
period of one week. An enquiry report
came to be submitted on 20.01.2018 by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meerut
that thereafter the S.S.P. Meerut on the
basis of the report so tendered therein wrote
a letter to the D.I.G. Meerut, making
recommendation for resignation of the writ
10 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
405
petitioner.
Thereafter,
the
Inspector
General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut,
second respondent, on the basis of the
recommendation of the S.S.P. Meerut dated
20.01.2018 relying upon the report dated
20.01.2018 of the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Meerut accepted the resignation
of the petitioner and directed for recovery
of the amount incurred on training of the
petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of
Civil Police and the salary so accorded to
him
on
the
post
of
Sub-inspector.
Thereafter, on 25.01.2018, the S.S.P.
Meerut wrote a letter to the Assistant
Superintendent of Police (Training) Police
Station Directorate, U.P. Lucknow about
the order dated 20.01.2018 regarding
acceptance of the resignation of the writ
petitioner.
On
15.02.2018,
the
writ
petitioner submitted an application before
the Inspector General of Police, Meerut
Range, Meerut, second respondent with a
request therein to retain him in the services
of the writ petitioner on the post of SubInspector in Civil Police. Thereafter, the
writ petitioner represented the case before
the respondents, however, on 22.06.2022,
the S.S.P. Meerut rejected the claim of the
writ petitioner for withdrawing of the
resignation and directed the recovery of
amount of Rs.4,97,600/-.

4.
Questioning
the
order
dated
20.01.2018 passed by Inspector General of
Police, Meerut Range, Meerut, second
respondent and order dated 22.06.2022
passed by S.S.P. Meerut fourth respondent,
present writ petition has been preferred.

5. This Court had entertained the writ
petition while calling for a counter
affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed,
to which a rejoinder affidavit has been
filed, which are available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner has sought to argue that the order
dated 20.01.2018 passed by the second
respondent, Inspector General of Police,
Meerut Range, Meerut, and the order dated
20.06.2022 passed by the S.S.P. Meerut,
fourth respondent cannot be sustained for a
single moment. Elaborating the said
submission, it is being contended that there
is a complete procedure set out in Section 9
of the Police Act 1861 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) and Regulation 505 of U.P.
Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to
as the Regulations) with respect to
resignation. Submission is that no police
officer has a liberty to withdraw himself
from the duties or resign until and unless
there is a two month prior notice.
Argument is that a letter of request made
for resignation is to contain a two months
notice
and
the
same
should
be
unconditional.

7. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner submits that the request letter
dated 28.12.2017 does not recite even a
single word about a two months notice and
further it is conditional, i.e.relieving and
then according joining in Delhi Police in
that regard. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of
this Court in Satya Paul Kalra vs. Deputy
Inspector General of Police, AIR 1964
Alld
121,
and
Dinesh
Kumar
vs.
Commandant 15th Battalion, 1999(3)
UPLBEC 2308 and Bhaggu Prasad vs.
State of U.P. 2004(5) AWC 3930.

8. Sri S.K. Pal, learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel on the other hand
submits that once the writ petitioner has
submitted a resignation, then it is not open
for him to withdraw the same, particularly
when
the
same
stood
accepted
on
20.01.2018
and
the
letter
seeking
withdrawal
of
the
resignation
was
submitted on 15.02.2018, i.e. much after
the acceptance.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. I have heard the submissions so
made across the Bar and perused the record
carefully.

10. Facts are not an issue. It is not an
issue that the writ petitioner was appointed
on the post of Constable in Delhi Police on
13.01.2010 and thereafter, in pursuance of
the selection conducted for the post of SubInspector
in
Civil
Police,
Platoon
Commander in PAC of the year 2011, the
writ
petitioner
after taking technical
resignation had joined the post of SubInspector on 31.08.2017. Thereafter the
writ petitioner claims to have submitted an
application on 28.12.2017 before the
Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone,
Meerut for relieving him from the post of
Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and for joining
in Delhi Police. The relevant extract of the
letter
dated
28.12.2017,
is
quoted
hereunder:-

"सेव में,

श्रीम न मह दनरीक्षक महोिय,

मेरठ जोन उ०प्र०.

दवषयः- उ०दन०न ०पु० पि से त्य गपत्र िेने हेतु ।

महोिय, सदवनय दनवेिन यह है दक प्र थी पूवग में
दिकली पुदलस में दसप ही के पि पर थ वह ाँ से Technical
Resignation िेकर UP Police S.I. C.P 2011 बैच
को Join दकय थ प्र थी की तदबयत लम्बे डयूटी Hour और
Time Schedule नहीं होने के क रण मेरठ में आमि होने के
ब ि से ही लग त र खर ब चल रही है, इसदलए प्र थी इस Job को
करने में असमथग है इसदलए महोिय से अनुरोि है दक प्र थी को
उ०दन० न ग० पु० पि से मुि कर पूवग के पि पर भेजने की कृप करे
।

आपकी अदत कृप होगी।"

11. The application so preferred by the
writ petitioner came to be accepted by the
Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone,
Meerut on 20.01.2018, which is quoted
hereunder:-

"आदेर्

उपदनरीक्षक प्रदशक्षण िीन पी०एन०ओ० नं०
152514022 श्री अजीत दसंह पुत्र श्री दछद्दी दसंह, दनयुदि
थ न - रोहट , जनपि-मेरठ द्व र एक प्र थगन -पत्र दिन ंक रदहत वररष्ठ
पुदलस अिीक्षक, जनपि- मेरठ के समक्ष दिन ंक 28-12-2017
को उपदस्थत होकर प्रेदषत करते हुए स्वयं की तदबयत लग त र खर ब
चलने के क रण जॉब को करने में असमथगत व्यि करते हुए
उपदनरीक्षक न ०पु० के पि से मुि दकये ज ने क अनुरोि दकय
गय है।

2- प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में वररष्ठ पुदलस अिीक्षक,
जनपि-मेरठ के म ध्यम से पुदलस उप िीक्षक, क य गलय, जनपि -
मेरठ द्व र सम्प दित कर यी गयी ज ंच आख्य दिन ंदकत 20-012018 क मेरे द्व र गहनत से अध्ययन दकय गय तो प य दक
ज ंच के िौर न ज ंचकत ग अदिक री श्री र मकरन दसंह, पुदलस
उप िीक्षक, जनपि मेरठ द्व र अपने सीयूजी मोब ईल नं०
9454458044 से उपदनरीक्षक प्रदशक्षण िीन अजीत दसंह के
दपत श्री दछद्दी दसह से उनके मोब ईल नं0 - 7409529667 पर
उनके पुत्र अजीत दसंह के स्वेच्छ से त्य ग पत्र िेने के सम्बन्ि में
व त ग की गयी, तो श्री दछद्दी दसंह ने बत य दक उन्हे अपने पुत्र
अजीत दसंह के त्य गपत्र के सम्बन्ि में पूणग ज नक री है तथ वह
अजीत दसंह के उ०दन० पि से दिये गये त्य ग पत्र से समहत है। श्री
दछद्दी दसंह को बुल ने पर उनके द्व र आने में असमथगत व्यि की
गयी। ज ंचकत ग अदिक री द्व र उपदनरीक्षक प्रदशक्षण िीन
पी०एन०ओ० नं०- 152514022 श्री अजीत दसंह क त्य गपत्र
स्वीकृत दकये ज ने की प्रबल संस्तुदत की गयी है स थ ही उि
उ0दन0 के प्रदशक्षण पर व्यय हुई िनर दश तथ इनकी भुगत न दकये
गये वेतन आदि के सम्बन्ि में पुदलस अिीक्षक क दमगक उ०प्र०
पुदलस मुख्य लय इल ह ब ि के पत्र संख्य सं० िस-51-2013
(75) दिन ंक 21.4.2016 के स थ अपर पुदलस मह दनिेशक
प्रदशक्षण उ०प्र० लखनऊ के पत्र सं0- प्रदन-प-29प29 (एस1)
रर०आब०1/1653 दिन ंक 18.4.2016 के अनुस र
प्रदशक्षण िीन उ०दन० श्री अजीत दसंह से प्रदशक्षण के मध्य व्यय हुई
िनर दश तथ उसको भुगत न दकये गये वेतन आदि की दनयम नुस र
वसूली दकये ज ने की संस्तुदत की गयी है।

3- उि सम्बन्ि में वररष्ठ पुदलस अिीक्षक, जनपि-
मेरठ ने अपने पत्र संख्य : प635/2017 दिन ंक 20.1.2018
10 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
407
के द्व र पुदलस उप िीक्षक क य गलय, जनपि-मेरठ से कर यी गयी
ज ंच आख्य से सहमदत व्यि करते हये उपदनरीक्षक प्रदशक्षण िीन
पी०एन०ओ० नं०-152514021 श्री अजीत दसंह द्व र प्रस्तुत
त्य ग-पत्र को स्वीक र दकये ज ने तथ प्रदशक्षण अवदि में व्यय हुई
िनर दश तथ उसे भुगत न दकये गये वेतन आदि के सम्बन्ि में
दनयम नुस र वसूली दकये ज ने की संस्तुदत की गयी है।

4- मैं पुदलस मह दनरीक्षक, मेरठ पररक्षेत्र, मेरठ
उपदनरीक्षक पि क दनयुदि प्र दिक री ह ाँ। अतः एत‌द्व र उपदनरीक्षक
प्रदशक्षण िीन पी०एन०ओ० नं०- 152514022 श्री अजीत दसंह
पुत्र श्री दछद्दी दसंह, दनयुदि थ न - रोहट , जनपि मेरठ के दिन ंक
रदहत प्र थगन -पत्र जो उसके द्व र दिन ंक 28-12-2017 को
वररष्ठ पुदलस अिीक्षक, जनपि मेरठ के समक्ष उपदस्थत होकर प्रस्तुत
दकय है में उदकलदखत तथ्यों पर सह नुभूदतपूवगक दवच रोपर न्त उत्तर
प्रिेश पुदलस दवभ ग के उपदनरीक्षक पि से उत उपदनरीक्षक
प्रदशक्षण िीन पी०एन०ओ० नं०-15251402 श्री अजीत दसंह
पुत्र श्री दछद्दी दसंह क त्य ग-पत्र स्वीकृत करत है। उि उपदनरीक्षक
के प्रदशक्षण पर व्यय हुई िनर दश तथ उसे भुगत न दकये गये वेतन
आदि की िनर दश को उि उपदनरीक्षक प्रदशक्षण िीन द्व र पुदलस
दवभ ग को दनयम नुस र व पस दकय ज येग । वररष्ठ पुदलस
अिीक्षक, जनपि मेरठ द्व र उि उपदनरीक्षक प्रदशक्षण िीन से उसके
प्रदशक्षण पर हुई िनर दश तथ उसे भुगत न दकये गये वेतन आदि की
दनयम नुस र वसूली सुदनदित की ज येगी।

12. Thereafter, the writ petitioner on
15.02.2018
submitted
an
application
seeking withdrawal of the resignation
which had been sought by virtue of the
letter dated 28.12.2017, which is quoted
hereunder:-

"सेव में

श्रीम न पुदलस मह दनरीक्षक महोिय,

मेरठ पररक्षेत्र, मेरठ

महोिय,

दनवेिन है दक प्र थी उ०प्र० पुदलस में सब इन्स्पेक्टर
के पि पर क यगरत थ प्र थी दपछले दिनों से बीम र चल रह थ ,
दजस क रण प्र थी ने बीम री के िब व में अपने उपदनरीक्षक न ०पु०
के पि त्य ग पत्र के दलए प्र थगन पत्र िेकर पूवग पि दिकली पुदलस
दसप ही के पि पर ज ने के दलए आपको को प्र थगन पत्र दिय गय
थ

इस प्र थगन पत्र में भी प्र थी ने अपनी बीम री क
क रण अंदकत दकय हुआ है। प्र थगन पत्र की फोटो प्रदत प्र थी इस
प्र थगन पत्र के स थ संलग्न कर रह है। प्र थी को दिन ंक
20.01.2018 के उपर न्त सब इन्स्पेक्टर पि से ररलीव कर दिय
गय थ अपनी बीम री से सम्बदन्ित क गज त प्र थी अपने हैं 1 इस
प्र थगन पत्र के स थ संलग्न कर रह है! अब प्र थी बीम री से उबर
चुक तथ बीम री के िब व में नहीं है। अब प्र थी घहत है दक प्र थी
को उत्तर प्रिेश अक्युगदलस में सब इन्स्पेक्टर न ०पु० के पि ही रख
ज ये। यह प्र थी क अदन्तम एवं सोच समझकर दलय हुआ दनणगय
है। पूवग में सुई गलदतयों के दलए प्र थी दवन शतग क्षम प्र थी है। प्र थी
को उपरोि सब इन्स्पेक्टर के पि से मुि करने क आिेश दिन ंक
20.01.2018 को आपके द्व र प ररत दकय गय थ .

दक फोटो प्रदत इस प्र थगन पत्र के स थ प्र थी संलग्न
कर रह है।

अतः न्य यदहत में प्र थी क यह प्र थगन पत्र स्वीक र
दकय ज न अदत आवश्यक है।

आपकी अदत कृप होगी ।"

13. Subsequently, on 22.06.2022, the
S.S.P. Meerut passed an order for recovery
of the amount of Rs.4,97,600/-.

14. The conditions of the services of
the writ petitioner as a police personnel
stands covered by the Act by the name and
the nomenclature of the Police Act, 1861,
which is quoted hereinunder: -

"9. Police-officers not to resign
without leave or two months' notice:- No
police-officer shall be at liberty to
withdraw himself from the duties of his
office unless expressly allowed to do so by
the District Superintendent or by some
other officer authorized to grant such
permission, or without the leave of the
District Superintendent, to resign his office,
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unless he shall have given to his superior
officer notice in writing, for a period of not
"less than two months, of his intention to
resign."

15. Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police
Regulations reads as under:-

"505. Resignation of a police
officer.- A Police Officer of the rank of
Inspector or below can resign his office on
giving in writing two months' notice of his
intention to resign but he shall not
withdraw from the duties of his office until
such time his resignation has been formally
accepted by the appropriate authority and
he has fully discharged any debt by him as
such Police Officer to Government or to
any police fund:

Provided that such a resignation
may be accepted by the authority with
effect from a date prior to the date of expiry
of the notice:

Provided
further
that
the
resignation of a police officer whose
conduct is under inquiry or who is being
proceeded against departmentally under
Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No. V
of 1861) or tried in a court of law for any
offence may, in the discretion of such
authority, not being accepted until such
time the final orders are passed as a result
of such inquiry, proceedings or trial as the
case may be."

16. A conjoint reading of Section 9 of
the Police Act and Section 505 of Police
Regulations would reveal that no police
officer possesses a liberty to withdraw
himself from the duties of his office, unless
explicitly allowed to do so by District
Superintendent or by some other police
officer authorized to grant such permission
or without the leave of the District
Superintendent to resign his office, unless
he has given to the superior office a notice
in writing of his intention to resign. As a
matter of fact, Section 9 of the Act read
with
Regulation
505
of
the
Police
Regulations cast a duty upon the Police
Officer, who seeks resignation to give a
notice of two months of his intention to
resign.

17. Here in the present case, the
contention of the learned counsel for the
writ petitioner is that the letter seeking
resignation dated 28.12.2017 was not in
conformity with the provisions contained
under Sections 9 of the Act read with
Regulation 505 of the Regulations, as the
basic ingredient, which was a pre-requisite
was itself lacking being two months' notice.
Emphasis is on the fact that once the notice
itself was defective, then it could not have
been acted upon and thus any action taken
in furtherance thereof that too to the
detriment of the police personnel would not
be of any avail. Certainly, once a request is
made for resignation and is accepted then
the employee cannot turn around and insist
that the resignation should be withdrawn,
but here there is a distinct feature that the
notice itself was defective. Once the notice
was defective and not in conformity with
the provisions contained under Section 9 of
the Police Act read with Regulation 505 of
the Police Regulations, then it could not
have been taken notice of. In Satya Paul
Kalra (supra), the said issue came up for
consideration and in para-22, it was
observed as under:-

"22. It will be seen that the
petitioner served a notice along with his
resignation. That is not contemplated by
Section 9 of the Police Act. Section 3,
Police Act contemplates two months' notice
10 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
409
before the resignation. On a strict
interpretation of Section 9, the notice must
precede the resignation."

18. Further a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Dinesh Kumar (supra) while
interpreting the provisions under Section 9
of the Police Act read with under Section
505 of the U.P. Police Regulations has
observed as under:-

"7. The resignation was contrary
to rules as well. Under Section 9 of the
Police Act, 1861 and para-graph 505 of the
Police Regulation an officer is at liberty to
relinquish his office by giving two months'
notice. These provisions apply to U.P
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary as well.
Section 9 of Police Act and paragraph 505
of the Police Regulation are extracted
below: "Section 9. Police Officers not to
resign without leave or two months notices.
No police officer shall be at liberty to
withdraw himself from the duties of his
office unless expressly allowed to do so by
the District Superintendent or by some
other officer authorised to grant such
permission or with-out the leave of District
Superintendent to resign, his office unless
he shall have given to his superior officer
notice in writing, for a period of not less
than two months, of his intention to resign.
PARA 505 OF POLICE REGULATION: A
Police Officer of the rank of Inspector or
below can resign his office on giving in
writing two months' notice of his intention
to resign but he shall not withdraw from
the duties of his office until such time his
resignation has been formally accepted by
the appropriate authority and he has fully
discharged any debt due by him to such
police officer to Government or to any
police
fund:
Provided
that
such
a
resignation may be accepted by the
authority with effect from date prior to the
date of expiring of notice: Provided further
that the resignation of police officer whose
conduct is under enquiry or who is being
proceeded against departmentally under
Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No. V
of 1861) or tried in a Court of law for any
offence may, in the discretion of such
authority, not be accepted until such time
the final orders are passed as a result of
such enquiry, proceedings or trial as the
case may be.

8. The argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
did not give two months' no-tice of
intention
to
resign,
therefore,
the
resignation letter of the petitioner being
contrary to the Act and the Regulation
could not have been acted upon, has force.
The provisions made under the Act and the
Regulation are intended for the benefit of
employer and the employer could waive the
period of notice and accept the resignation.
The language of resignation letter becomes
important and from the construction of the
language used in the resignation letter one
has to find out as to whether the employee
intended to resign with immediate effect or
not. The resignation letter in this case does
not state that the petitioner was resigning
with immediate effect. It is common
knowledge that a person proposing to
resign often wavers in his decision and
even in a case where he has taken a firm
decision to resign, he may not be ready to
go out immediately. One may resign in a fit
of anger or depression. The purpose of
giving two months' notice by the employee
is two fold. One it gives the employer an
opportunity to make some alternative
arrangement before relieving the employee
and the other it gives an opportunity to the
employee to re-think as to whether he may
continue with the resignation. It is true that
there is no specific provision either in the
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act or in the Regulation permitting the employee to withdraw resignation. However,
no such specific rules are needed. Until the
employer ac-cepts the resignation the
employee could withdraw his resignation.
The respondents could waive pe-riod of two
months' notice mentioned in the Act and the
Regulation but there is nothing on the
record to show that the notice was waived
by the respondents. In absence of any
material on record and in absence of any
reason the respondents in law could have
accepted resignation of the petitioner after
the expiry of two months. Even if the
respondents accepted the resignation dated
6.3.1993 on 11.3.1993 the acceptance of
resignation remained mute and could be
operative only on or after 6.5.1993 The
petitioner withdrew his resignation on
24.3.1993, therefore, the resignation letter
and its acceptance became a dead letter
and ineffective. The result was that the
petitioner continued to be in service of the
respondents and was illegally deprived by
the respondent to discharge his duties."

19. In Bhaggu Prasad (supra), the
said law was reiterated in para-11 and 13,
as under:-

"11. Therefore, it is necessary to
peruse the provision of para bara 505 of
the U.P. Police Regulations and relevant
provisions of Sections 2(2), 4 and 9 of the
U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act,
1948, which are reproduced as under-

"Para 505 -- A police officer of
the rank of Inspector or below can resign
his office on giving in writing two month's
notice of his intention to re-sign but he
shall not withdraw from the duties of his
office until such time his resignation has
been formally accepted by the appropriate
authority and he has fully discharged any
debt due by him and such Police officer to
government or to any police fund:

Provided that such a resignation
may be ac-cepted by the authority with
effect from date prior to the date of
expiring of notice:

Provided
further
that
the
resignation of police officer whose conduct
is under enquiry or who is being proceeded
against departmentally under Section 7 of
the Police Act, 1861 (Act No.V of 1861) or
tried in a court of law for any offence may,
in the discretion of such authority, not be
accepted until such time the fi-nal orders
are passed as a result of such enquiry,
proceedings or trial as the case may be.

2.(2) Definitions:- In this Act,
unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context:

(2). "Officer of the Pradeshik
Armed Constabulary" means a person
appointed
to
the
Pradeshik
Armed
Constabulary under this Act, who has, in
accordance with the provisions of this Act,
signed a state-ment in the form given in the
Schedule.

4. Enrollment and discharge of
officers
of
the
Pradeshik
Armed
Constabulary (Act V of 1861) Before any
person, whether already enrolled in Uttar
Pradesh Police Force under Police Act,
1861, or not so enrolled, is appointed to be
an
officer
of
the
Pradeshik
Armed
Constabulary,
the
statement
in
the
Schedule shall be read, and if necessary explained
to
him
by
a
Magistrate,
Commandant or Assistant Commandant,
shall be signed by him in acknowledgment
of its having been so read and explained to
him and shall be attested by the Magistrate,
10 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
411
commandant or Assistant commandant as
the case may be.

9. Discharge from Pradeshik
Armed Constabulary: -- Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Police Act, 1861,
or in any other law, no officer of the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary shall be
entitled
to
be
discharged
from
the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary."

12. The language of the schedule
is reproduced as under:

"At no time during the period of
your service in the Pradesh Armed
Constabulary you will be enti-tled to obtain
your discharge at your own request. On the
liquidation of the force or of the company
in which you may, for the time being be
posted you will be discharged from the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary and unless
you were already a confirmed member of
Uttar Pradesh Police Force be-fore joining
the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary from
Uttar Pradesh Police also. You will,
however, be eligible for re-enlistment in
Uttar Pradesh Police in the event of your
continuing in Uttar Pradesh Police for
your re-enlistment therein, your service in
the Uttar Pradesh Pradeshik Armed
Constabulary will count for promotion and
pension in Uttar Pradesh Police."

13. Perusal of the above quoted
provisions show that the officer of the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (PAC) is
not permitted to be discharged voluntarily
and therefore, for this particular purpose
an undertaking is taken by every officer of
the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary in the
set language given in the schedule of the
Act which is quoted above. The same is not
only binding upon the officer of the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, but is also
binding upon the appointing authority. In
regard to giving of notice the period is to
be looked into as if it is treated to be
correct that the appointing authority has
every jurisdiction to waive off the notice
period, it cannot mean that there would be
no effect of notice by the officer of the
Pradeshik
Armed
Constabulary
who
intends to tender resignation or to get
discharge voluntarily. The officer has to
give notice of two months, which is
mandatory requirements under the law and
during the period of notice, he can-not
neglect his duty or remain absent from the
duty.
Therefore,
it
was
mandatory
requirement under the law that without
giving two months' notice the resignation of
the petitioner was not even to be
entertained in view of para 505 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. Although the petitioner
could have applied for waiver of notice
period, but in that case too two months'
notice was liable to be given under that
para of the U.P. Police Regulations. It
appears that the attention of the Court in
the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) was not
drawn towards Section 9 of the U.P.
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948
which prohibits the voluntarily discharge
from Pradeshik Armed Constabulary."

20. There is another facet of the
matter, which also needs consideration
while determining whether the request for
resignation was conditional or not. As a
matter of fact, in the request letter dated
28.12.2017,
there
was
a
condition
mentioned with respect to resignation that
the writ petitioner, who seeks resignation
post
acceptance
of
resignation,
be
repatriated or sent to Delhi Police. Same
partakes the character of a conditional
resignation, which is not contemplated
either in Section 9 of the Police Act or
Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations.
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In Dinesh Kumar (supra), the following
has been observed: -

"9. As I have held earlier that the
resignation by the petitioner was not
intentional or voluntary and was obtained
by respondent under force and the
petitioner was not in a fit mental state when
resignation
was
obtained
from
him,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement and entire arrears of salary."

21. Apart from the same, the first
proviso to Regulation 505 of the Police
Regulations also throws light that the
resignation can only be accepted by the
authority w.e.f. a date subsequent to the
date of expiry of the notice and not prior to
it, meaning thereby that two months notice
is to be given by the police personnel
seeking resignation. Moreover, Regulation
505 of the Police Regulation, also adds to
one another aspect that his resignation
cannot be accepted until and unless he fully
discharged the debt. Here, the Court finds
that the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by
the SSP Meerut, post acceptance of the
resignation on 20.01.2018 on 22.06.2022,
recovery is being sought to be made for
discharge
of
the
debt.
Thus,
even
otherwise, the resignation could not have
been accepted.

22. On a pointed query being raised to
Sri S.K. Pal, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel, whether the judgment so sought to
be relied upon by the writ petitioner has
been subject matter of challenge in appeal,
set aside or stayed, the answer is in
negative.
Respectfully
following
the
mandate of law, as enunciated in the
aforesaid judgments, and applying them in
the facts and circumstances of the case, an
irresistible conclusion stands drawn, that
the resignation could not have been
accepted, particularly when it was not as
per the provisions contained under the
statute.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 20.01.2018
passed by Inspector General of Police,
Meerut Region, second respondent, as well
as the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the
fourth respondent, S.S.P. Meerut are set
aside. The writ petitioner shall be entitled
to all the consequential benefits, which are
admissible and permissible in law, within a
period of four months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 412
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No. 15148 of 2025

Ray Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Secretary, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Babu Ram Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether
the
third
respondent,
Director
(Administration) Medical and Health, Services,
U.P. Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow should be
directed to consider petitioner's claim for
transfer?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The writ petition is being
disposed off granting liberty to the writ
petitioner
to
prefer
a
comprehensive