Lahiri, J.:- This is an application under Article 226 of the Cons­titution of India whereby the petitioner questions the validity of the order of termination passed by the respondents vide Order No. AGCC/PS/BONG/81-82/69 dated 22.3.82 marked Annexure E. The petitioner submits that the termination was violative of the principles of Natural Justice and also violative of the Assam Ser­vices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. However, Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner could not get over the letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure 'D' dated 16/12/81. By the said letter the petitioner wrote to the respondents that he wished to be released from his services as he desired to proceed for further studies. Accordingly, the petitioner requited the respondents to release him "immediately" from his services. It appears from Annexure 'E' that on receipt of the said request i.e. "submission of resignation" as written by the petitioner himself in Annexure, 'B'the respondents terminated his services with effect from 1/10/81. Annexure 'D' clearly shows that the petitioner described the subject of his letter as "Submission of resignation". A bare persual of the letter clearly depicts that it was "tender of resignation" by the petitioner. Naturally, the respondents terminated his services in terms of his letter of resignation. However, the order of acceptances of the resignation is dated 23rd of Fabruary, 1982 but it was given retrospective effect from 1st of October, 1981. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents could not accept the resignation retrospectively from 1st of October, 1981 when the petitioner did not submit his resignation retrospectively. The position was fully realised by Mr. Prabir Barthakur, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel submits that in fact the resignation of the petitioner was accepted but the retrospective effect of the acceptance of the resignation was given as the petitioner had intermittently and/or continuously absented from duty without leave. However, we are constrained to hold that the resignation of the petitioner could not have been accepted prior to the date of submission of the resignation. Mr. Barthakur submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner on resignation may be held to be effective from 23/2/82. Accordingly, we direct that the acceptance of resignation on and from 1st of October, 1981 is invalid. We find that in fact the respondents accepted the resignation of the petitioner on and from 23/2/82. Mr. Barthakur submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner on resignation may be held to be effective from 23/2/82. Accordingly, we direct that the acceptance of resignation on and from 1st of October, 1981 is invalid. We find that in fact the respondents accepted the resignation of the petitioner on and from 23/2/82. As such, the petitioner shall be treated to have resigned on and from 23/2/82. To this learned counsel for the parties have no objection whatsoever. 2. Now comes the question of payment of salary, allow­ances and gratuity. The petitioner shall be entitled to his due salary from the first of October, 1981 to 23rd of February, 1982. However, he shall not be entitled to any salary during which he was absent without leaves. He shall be entitled to the gra­tuity and other allowaness as provided under the rules governing the service condition of the petitioner. 3. With the above observations we dispose of this application.