JUDGMENT 1. Satya Veer Singh, the petitioner in this writ petition was Constable in the Police Force of the Government of Rajasthan since July 1, 1983, he was posted at Buhana, Police Station. On 26th September, 1983, the petitioner submitted his resignation from service. The said resignation was accepted by Superintendent of of Police Jhunjhunu by his order dated 27th September, 1983, with effect from 27th September, 1983. After the resignation had been submitted the petitioner met the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu and sought permission to withdraw the resignation, The Superintendent of Police expressed his inability to do anything in the matter since the resignation had been accepted. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur who passed an order dated 3rd March, 1984 directing the Superintendent of Police Jhunjhunu to take the petitioner back on duty. As the Superintendent of Police did not comply with the order dated 3rd March, 1984 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the petitioner has approached this Court and has prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued directing the respondents to treat the resignation of the petitioner as withdrawn, honest, illegal and void in the eye of law. 2. In the reply that has been filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that on 26th September, 1983, the petitioner was given some special duties which he did not join and he did not carry out the order of the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Buhana. The Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, on checking, found the petitioner absent and when he was called by Superintendent of Police, the petitioner without giving any explanation voluntarily tendered his resignation and asked the Superintendent of Police to accept the same. A written request of the petitioner was taken by the Superintendent of Police through S.H.O., Police Station, Buhana, Jhunjhunu on 26th November, 1983. The said resignation was considered by the Superintendent of Police on 27th September, 1983 and the said resignation was accepted on that date. In the reply it has been further stated that when the letter of acceptance of the resignation was served on the petitioner he approached higher authority. The said resignation was considered by the Superintendent of Police on 27th September, 1983 and the said resignation was accepted on that date. In the reply it has been further stated that when the letter of acceptance of the resignation was served on the petitioner he approached higher authority. In the reply it has been stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Police had no power to set-aside the order of the Superintendent of Police and that in any event the Deputy Inspector General of Police did not quash the order of the Superintendent of Police but only asked the Superintendent of Police to withdraw his orders if the orders of acceptance of resignation was not served on the petitioner, and since the order of acceptance of resignation was served on the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police did not withdraw his order. In the said reply it has also been stated that since the resignation had been accepted, the petitioner could not be taken back on duty. 3. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the copies of the letter dated 3rd March, 1984, addressed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, as well as the letter dated 26th April, 1984 addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Jaipur Range, Jaipur and the order dated 29th September, 1983 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu. 4. I have heard Shri Hanuman Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. L. Pareek, the learned Additional Government Advocate. 5. With regard to the acceptance of resignation and withdrawal of the same, there are certain notifications of the Government of Rajasthan on the basis of which notes have been appended to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Clause (d) of Note (1) which is based on the notification dated 2nd August, 1979, reads as under: "(d) Authority competent to permit withdrawal of resignation. A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. Where a resignation has not become effective and the Government servant wishes to withdraw it, it is open to the authority which accepted the resignation either to permit the Government servant withdraw the resignation or to refuse the request for such withdrawal. A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. Where a resignation has not become effective and the Government servant wishes to withdraw it, it is open to the authority which accepted the resignation either to permit the Government servant withdraw the resignation or to refuse the request for such withdrawal. Where, however, a resignation has become effective, the Government servant is no longer in Government service and acceptance of the request for withdrawal of resignation would amount to re-employing him in service after condoning the period of break. Concurrence of the Finance Department and Appointments Department (through normal channels) should be obtained before a request for withdrawal is accepted in such cases". 6. In Note (2) which is based on notification dated 7th September. 1970, it is provided as under:- "2. A question has been raised whether resignation of a Government Servant can be accepted without furnishing by him "No dues certificate." The matter has been considered and it has been decided that resignation tendered by the Government servant should not be accepted until "No Dues Certificate" is obtained and furnished by him to the authority competent to accept resignation. It is also enjoined on all authorities concerned that if such a Government servant approaches for "No Dues Certificate", it should be issued to him without loss of time." 7. From the aforesaid notes appended to Rule-22 it is clear that the resignation of a Government servant becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties and it is not open to the Government servant to withdraw the resignation after the resignation being effective. The said notes also show that before accepting the resignation of a Government servant, the No Dues Certificate must be obtained and resignation by Government servant should not be accepted until No Dues Certificate is furnished by him to the authority competent to accept the resignation. 8. In the present case, the petitioner in Sub para (iii) of para 7 of the writ petition has stated that it is the rule of practice that one who resigns from service is required to deposit all the Government dues etc. and for all this purpose the report of the Accounts Section is obtained and that in the instant case this formality was not complied with. and for all this purpose the report of the Accounts Section is obtained and that in the instant case this formality was not complied with. The aforesaid averment has not been controverted in the reply that has been filed on behalf of the respondents which shows that before the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police on 27th September, 1983 the No Dues Certificate had not been received and the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police was in disregard of the directions contained in the Note 2 to Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Further more in sub para (iii) of para 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has also stated that even after his resignation was accepted, the petitioner was not asked to deposit the belt and liveries which are required to be deposited as soon as the official has ceased to be in service. The aforesaid averments have also not been denied in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and what has been stated in it is that follow up action could not be taken as the petitioner absented himself and avoided the service of letters. This would show that after the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police on 27th September, 1983 the necessary follow up action with a view to relieve the petitioner from duty was not taken and that the petitioner was not relieved of his duty in pursuance of the order accepting the resignation of the petitioner. In view of clause (d) of the note appended below Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the resignation becomes effective only when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. Since in the present case the petitioner was not relieved of his duties after acceptance of his resignation, the said resignation did not become effective and the request of the petitioner for the withdrawal of the resignation could not be rejected on the ground that it was submitted after the resignation had become effective. Since in the present case the petitioner was not relieved of his duties after acceptance of his resignation, the said resignation did not become effective and the request of the petitioner for the withdrawal of the resignation could not be rejected on the ground that it was submitted after the resignation had become effective. The letter dated 3rd March 1984 which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner and a copy of which has been filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate, also proceeds on the basis of that resignation of the petitioner had not become effective and, therefore, his request for withdrawal of the resignation should be considered. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances referred to above, I am of the opinion that the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, was not justified in law in not taking into consideration the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation submitted by him on the view that the resignation of the petitioner had been accepted and it had become effective before the request for withdrawal of the resignation was made. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Superintendent of Police Jhunjhunu is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation and pass appropriate orders on the said request of the petitioner in accordance with the law. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******