Short Note : 1. The petitioner was employed as a temporary Auditor in the office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh. On 3-5-1974, he wrote a letter requesting the department to be relieved from services. According to the petitioner, he had lost this letter after writing it but as luck would have it, it found its way into the hands of the officers of the department According to the petitioner, he had sent a letter of withdrawal on 18-9-1974 requesting that his resignation be not accepted. On 20-8-1974, the Accountant-General accepted his resignation. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation that he had before the resignation was accepted, sent a letter withdrawing his resignation and his letter of withdrawal ought to have been considered. In response to this, the Accountant-General passed an order that the request for withdrawal of resignation was duly considered and was rejected. Held: The main contention before us by the petitioner is that the letter of withdrawal having been sent to the department before the acceptance of the resignation. it ought to have been considered, by them. In the return, the respondent No.2 has stated that the letter of withdrawal had been surreptitiously introduced into the files after the order accepting the resignation of, the petitioner was passed. In the return, they have stated that there had been a tampering of the letter of resignation originally filed. 2. In this case, we find that the relevant facts are disputed. There is a dispute as regards the actual language of the letter, of resignation and whether it had been duly presented in the office by the petitioner and secondly, whether, in fact, a letter of withdrawal of resignation had been sent by the petitioner or not. We do not think that the petitioner can invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when such disputed questions of facts are in issue. Before giving a decision in the petition, it would be necessary, to go into the disputed questions which would not be within the scope of the proceedings before us. We, therefore, think that the petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground. The petitioner may, if so advised, take re-course to civil proceedings to have his right adjudicated. Petition dismissed.