New Delhi: Judicial officer Ipsita Mohanty, appointed to the Odisha Judicial Services in February 2015, faced a severe personal crisis the next year when her only child was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
The now-15-year-old suffers from complex neurological issues, speech inability, and self-harming behavior. Mohanty, while she was posted at Bhubaneswar, provided him continuous therapy and treatment at specialised centres.
However, following her transfer in July 2022 to Hindol in Dhenkanal district, she encountered a complete absence of autism healthcare facilities and trained therapists. As her son’s health rapidly deteriorated, in September 2022, Mohanty sought a posting at Bhubaneswar headquarters for two-and-a-half years for her child’s treatment.
The High Court Standing Committee deferred her representation in October 2022 and did not communicate any decision or place it for final consideration. Mohanty submitted a letter on 29 November 2022 requesting permission to resign.
Shortly thereafter, following medical advice that her son required long-term therapy, and amidst her marriage dissolution proceedings, Mohanty formally submitted an application on 21 December, withdrawing her letter seeking the permission to resign.
Her marriage was legally dissolved in January 2023.
Last week, the Odisha High Court quashed an order relieving her from service and directed state authorities to reinstate Mohanty immediately, saying she had withdrawn her resignation before it was formally accepted.
Her withdrawal was submitted well before the Governor of Odisha, the statutory appointing authority, approved a Full Court’s recommendation of 31 December 2022 to accept her resignation.
Nevertheless, the Law Department issued a notification on 2 January 2023, relieving her from service with immediate effect, prompting Mohanty to approach the High Court.
The bench concluded that since her withdrawal reached the authorities before executive acceptance, no valid resignation existed for the Governor to accept.
A Division Bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra noted that it was not disputed that she withdrew her resignation well before its acceptance and “it is not her fault that her timely withdrawal application was not processed by the recommending authority with the same haste with which it dealt with the Resignation application”.
He added that she cannot be punished as she had acted in consonance with statutory provisions and applicable guidelines in withdrawing the resignation before its acceptance.
Notification quashed
Hearing her 2023 writ petition last week, the Odisha High Court quashed the Law Department’s January 2023 notification.
A Division Bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra directed state authorities to reinstate Mohanty immeditely as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM.
While denying back wages based on an undertaking given by Mohanty stating that “if she is allowed to join in her service, she will not claim any financial benefit for the period she did not render her service”, the bench held that she is entitled to “continuity of her service since 03.01.2023 with all other consequential service benefits”.
The court established that under the Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007, read with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, the Governor of Odisha is the sole appointing and accepting authority for Civil Judges.
Consequently, a prospective resignation can be legally withdrawn at any point before formal acceptance by the appointing authority.
Justice Pathak held that Mohanty’s resignation “was not voluntary at all and it was under compelling situation and duress”.
The bench also censured administrative omissions, observing that authorities had failed to notify the Law Department and Governor about her withdrawal application, keeping them in the “dark with regard to those subsequent developments”.
Concurring view: Balancing judicial duties and motherhood
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra underscored the human and constitutional dimensions of the case, citing precedent to highlight how “the petitioner (mother) had to draw a balance between her duties as a judicial officer and as a mother”.
“Here in this case, the petitioner was the lone person to look after her autistic son, who failed to provide proper medical treatment and therapy due to lack of such medical facilities at Hindol, Dhenkanal and nearby areas to treat a child suffering from autism”.
Reaffirming the rule that “a ‘prospective’ resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective”, Justice Mishra noted that “her ruminations and second thoughts brought about by well-meaning people around her and the prospects of not getting a commensurate job… would what a rational and prudent person would have done”.
“Real life situations are complex and each one fights his/her battles in unique ways,” the judge said.
Justice Mishra noted that it is not in dispute that she withdrew her resignation much prior to its acceptance and “it is not her fault that her timely withdrawal application was not processed by the recommending authority with the same haste with which it dealt with the Resignation application”.
He added that she cannot be punished as she had acted in consonance with statutory provisions and applicable guidelines in withdrawing the resignation before its acceptance.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)