Division Bench Upholds Reinstatement of Assistant Professor Whose Resignation Letter Itself Recorded Coercion

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Chouksey Engineering College's appeal, holding that accepting a resignation admittedly submitted under threat, without any prior inquiry, was legally unsustainable.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on 15 July 2026 dismissed a writ appeal filed by Chouksey Engineering College against an order directing the reinstatement of Ashish Kumar Khandelwal, an Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The Single Judge had earlier found that Khandelwal's resignation dated 21 September 2020 was not voluntary, quashed its acceptance, and directed reinstatement with arrears of salary and all consequential service benefits from 23 September 2020. The Division Bench agreed, holding that the management's failure to conduct any inquiry before accepting the resignation — despite the resignation letter itself recording that it was submitted under threat from two colleagues — rendered the acceptance legally unsustainable.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Khandelwal, who worked as an Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Chouksey Engineering College, Bilaspur, submitted a resignation on 21 September 2020. The college's management accepted it two days later, on 23 September 2020. Khandelwal subsequently approached the High Court through WPS No. 447 of 2021, challenging the acceptance as illegal.

His case was that the resignation was not voluntary. He asserted it had been submitted under threat and pressure exerted by two colleagues, namely Chitrakant Tiger and Jai Kishan Gupta. He sought a declaration that the acceptance was void, along with reinstatement, arrears of salary, provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral dues.

The Single Judge, by order dated 9 April 2026, accepted Khandelwal's case. The court found the resignation was not voluntary, quashed its acceptance, and directed reinstatement with full arrears and service benefits from the date of acceptance. Aggrieved, the college filed Writ Appeal No. 592 of 2026 under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

The College's Argument: No Inquiry Was Required for a Voluntary Resignation

Dr. Veena Nair, appearing for the appellant-college, pressed two main contentions before the Division Bench. First, that Khandelwal had voluntarily tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules. There was, she argued, no material before the Single Judge to conclude that the resignation had been obtained under coercion, threat, or undue influence.

The two colleagues named in the resignation letter, Chitrakant Tiger and Jai Kishan Gupta, had both filed affidavits before the court denying the allegations. No independent evidence, the college submitted, had been placed on record to substantiate the plea of coercion.

The second argument went further: the Single Judge had wrongly presumed that an inquiry was mandatory before accepting any resignation. The college contended that no such legal requirement exists where an employee voluntarily submits a resignation. On that basis, it argued that the order directing reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits was unsustainable and deserved to be set aside.

Khandelwal's Position: The Resignation Letter Disclosed the Pressure on Its Face

Mr. Dibyanand Patel, appearing for Khandelwal, defended the Single Judge's order. His central submission was that the resignation letter itself — on the face of it — stated that it was being tendered under threat and pressure from the two named colleagues. The management had accepted the resignation within two days of receiving it, without making any effort to satisfy itself that the resignation was free from compulsion.

He submitted that the Single Judge was right to hold that a resignation obtained under coercion cannot be treated as voluntary, and that its acceptance was therefore illegal. He also pressed that Khandelwal was entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and statutory dues, and that the judgment warranted no interference in appeal.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench examined the material on record and found the appeal devoid of merit. The reasoning was grounded in a straightforward finding about what the resignation letter said and what the management did — or failed to do — in response.

The court noted that the resignation letter dated 21 September 2020 itself recorded that it was being submitted under threat and pressure from two colleagues. Given that express disclosure, the court held that the management was required to satisfy itself regarding the voluntariness of the resignation before accepting it. Admittedly, no inquiry or verification was undertaken before the acceptance on 23 September 2020.

The college's reliance on the subsequent affidavits filed by the two colleagues denying the allegations was specifically addressed and rejected. The Division Bench held that such subsequent denials “cannot cure the failure of the appellant to examine the circumstances existing at the time of acceptance.” The obligation to verify arose at the point of acceptance, not afterwards.

The court also disposed of the argument that no inquiry is required for a voluntary resignation. That proposition may be correct in the abstract, the court effectively reasoned, but it does not apply where the resignation letter itself puts the question of voluntariness in issue. Where the document the employer is acting upon contains an assertion of coercion, the employer cannot simply proceed to accept it and later argue that voluntariness was presumed.

The consequential directions for reinstatement and service benefits, the bench held, naturally followed from the declaration that the acceptance was invalid. No error of fact or law had been demonstrated by the college to justify appellate interference.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No. 592 of 2026. The order of the Single Judge — quashing the acceptance of the resignation dated 21 September 2020 and directing Khandelwal's reinstatement with arrears of salary and all consequential service benefits from 23 September 2020 — was affirmed. No order as to costs was made.