Judgment :- 1. While serving as Lecturer in Mathematics, in Government College, Calicut the petitioner was, by Ext. P1 order dated 13-6-1968 deputed as Principal of the M E S. College, Ponnani, an institution run by a private agency, namely the Muslim Educational Society (M.E S. for short). The detailed terms and conditions of deputation followed by Ex. P2 G. O. dated 25 91968, which stated the period of deputation to be for two years, and that the terms and conditions other than those specified therein were to be governed by the provisions of Chapter XI, Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. By Ext. P3 order dated 7-7-1970, while extending the period of deputation for a further term of three years, on the same conditions, the action of the M.E.S. in having transferred the petitioner from the College at Ponnani to the College at Mampad was ratified. By Ext. P4 order dated 18-7-1972, the petitioner was recalled from deputation before the expiry of the period. The ground stated for the action was that complaint had been received against the petitioner that he had collected funds from the public as well as from students for the benefit of the M.E.S. institutions and that he issued press statements which were given prominence in most of the leading Malayalam dailies published from Calicut. By a subsequent order dated 26-7-1972 (not produced but referred to in Ext. P12) he was posted to the Government College, Kasaragod. The Muslim Educational Society interceded by Ex.P5 dated 23-7-1972 to get Ex. P4 recalled. The petitioner himself sent the original of Ex.P6 dated Ist August 1972, stating that the M.E.S. had offered him a permanent appointment as Principal in the service of its institution, and that the circumstances he was resigning from Government service and that the communication may be treated as his resignation with effect from 1-8-1972. Ext. P7 dated 2-8-1972 is a copy of the appointment order by the M.E.S. of the Petitioner as Principal on quite favourable terms. Ext. P8 communication dated 6-9-1972, from the Secretary to the Government Education Department to the correspondent of the M.E.S. College Committee, with copy to the petitioner stated that a preliminary enquiry by the Director of Collegiate, Education on the allegations against the petitioner was afoot, and that he resignation of the petitioner was to escape enquiry and further disciplinary act on. P8 communication dated 6-9-1972, from the Secretary to the Government Education Department to the correspondent of the M.E.S. College Committee, with copy to the petitioner stated that a preliminary enquiry by the Director of Collegiate, Education on the allegations against the petitioner was afoot, and that he resignation of the petitioner was to escape enquiry and further disciplinary act on. To this, the petitioner replied by Ext. P9 dated 21-9-1972 that he was unaware of the preliminary enquiry, and that if the complaint petition recited as No 4 in Ext P4 was the foundation of the enquiry the same had already been enquired into by the M.E.S. and found to be false and baseless. This was followed by Ext. P10 letter dated 14-10-1972, from the petitioner calling attention to Ext. P9 and presuming that the resignation had been accepted by the Government By Ext P11 letter dated 9-11-1972 to the Manager, Mampad College, the Government stated that the Management of the College was abetting the disobe dience of orders by a Government Officer deputed for service in a private insti-totion, and requested that the Principal be relieved to enable him to join duty in his nee post. Ext. P12 dated 22-11-1972 is the copy of a further communi-cation from the Government to the petitioner, viewing his continuous disobe-dience of Government orders gravely, and threatening disciplinary measures. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P4, P8 P11 and P12; and a declaration that he is no longer a Government servant and that the respondents had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against him, or, in the alternative a direction to the Government to accept his resignation from Government service. 3. It is plain that Ext. P4 order cancelling the petitioner's order of deputation before expiry of the term cannot be quashed under Art.226 as the petitioner's remedy, if any, must be purely for breach of a contractual term But the prayer for a declaration that the petitioner had ceased to be a Government servant was pressed. It was stressed that once the petitioner had sent Ext. P6 letter of resignation dated 1-8-1972, the petitioner's service under the Government had come to an end, quite irrespective of whether the letter of relation was accepted or not. It was stressed that once the petitioner had sent Ext. P6 letter of resignation dated 1-8-1972, the petitioner's service under the Government had come to an end, quite irrespective of whether the letter of relation was accepted or not. The definition of a 'member of a service' in R.2 (9) of Part I of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules was relied on. The same only states, to the extent relevant, that a 'member of a service' means a person who has not resigned. That does not help to resolve the controversy as to when the resignation takes effect, when the letter is sent, or when it is accepted. Nor does R.23 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules afford any help or guidance. To the extent relevant, it only states that an officer shall cease to draw pay and allowances as soon as he ceased to discharge the duties attached to the post. When he so ceases is not provided by the rule; and the Government decision No.1 referred to at the foot of the rule, is unhelpful, and of no compelling authority. The position of law was enunciated in Rajkumar v. Union of India (AIR. 1969 SC. 180). It was observed: "Termination of employment by order passed by the Government does not become effective until the order is intimated to the employee. But where a public servant has invited by bis letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae, but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify as inference that resignation has not been accepted." (Italics mine) It is also not without significance that the petitioner himself in Exts. P9 and P10 proceeded on the basis that his resignation required acceptance, and either solicited acceptance of the resignation (Ext. P9) or presumed that the Government had accepted his resignation (Ext. P9 and P10 proceeded on the basis that his resignation required acceptance, and either solicited acceptance of the resignation (Ext. P9) or presumed that the Government had accepted his resignation (Ext. P10). The decision in Dr. Pratap Singh's case (AIR. 1964 SC. 72) on which the petitioner's Counsel placed reliance has no application. It only stated that an officer cannot be continued against his will beyond the period of superannuation for purpose of continuing disciplinary proceedings. In the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajkumar's case (AIR. 1969 SC. 180), the petitioner is not entitled to a declaration that his service under the Government has come to an end by mere sending of Ext. P6 letter. 4. It was contended that the Government's omission to accept the petitioner's resignation was mala fide and to spite the petitioner. It was pointed out that Ext. P4 recited a complaint petition dated 6 51972 from one Seethi Haji, that the same had been enquired into by the M. E, S. authorities and found to be baseless and false, (as stated in Ex P9 communication of the petitioner), and that despite Seethi Haji's complaint being dated 6 51972, there was no mention at all of a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner by the Director of Collegiate Education either in Ext. P4 dated 18 7 72 or in Ext. P5 dated 25 71972. In Para.9 and 10 of the petition it is alleged that the 'Chandrika' daily, the official organ of the Muslim League was hostile towards the Muslim Educational Society, and that the Kerala State Muslim League itself by its resolutions had regarded the Society as opposed to the Shariat. In Para.13 the petitioner has stated that the President and Secretary of the College Committee (and not himself) stated at a press conference that Sri. C.H. Mohammed Koya, Minister for Education of the State had made speeches that himself and his colleagues had collected Rs. 1,75, 000.00 for the Mampad College from Bombay, that the accounts of the College revealed only an amount of Rs. 50,505.00 handed over to the College, and that the accounts of the collections made by the Muslim League Leaders were not submitted to the College Committee. The petitioner has alleged that this news item was prominently featured in all the important daily papers and that this had infuriated the Muslim League leadership. 50,505.00 handed over to the College, and that the accounts of the collections made by the Muslim League Leaders were not submitted to the College Committee. The petitioner has alleged that this news item was prominently featured in all the important daily papers and that this had infuriated the Muslim League leadership. These allegations have been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Ist Respondent and also in a separate counter-affidavit filed by Sri. C. H. Mohammed Koya, Minister for Education. I note that there is no denial of the allegations in Para.13 of the petition. But I am not satisfied about the plea of mala fides. Mala fides is now alleged only in not accepting the letter of resignation, and not in respect of any disciplinary proceedings which are yet to be started against the petitioner. Having sent Exts. P12 on 22-11-1972 the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 29-11-1972. It has been alleged in the counter-affidavit and stated in the course of arguments that the Government are considering the question of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and if before that is decided the resignations were to be accepted, the contemplated disciplinary proceedings would be stultified. I see no ground not to accept this statement. The fact that Ex. P4 and P5 contain no reference to the preliminary enquiry into the complaint against the petitioner is not material; and 1 am not satisfied that the reason for having kept the letter of resignation pending was to harass the petitioner rather than to decide whether the proceedings should be started against him. In that view I cannot accept the plea of mala fides. I record the statement made by the Government Pleader that a decision to accept or not to accept the resignation will be taken within a week of the disposal of the O. P. I dismiss this writ petition but without costs.