Judgment :- The petitioner joined the services of C.B.M. College, Kovaiputhur, Coimbatore, since its inception. While so, due to certain unpleasant developments in the College, petitioner initially submitted a letter of resignation on 31.8.1979 to the Secretary of the College. It is alleged that on persuasion the staff members of the College, the petitioner withdrew the said letter of resignation the very same day in the evening. It is further alleged that the petitioner had handed the said letter of withdrawal personally to the Secretary of the College. In view of withdrawal of the letter of resignation, the petitioner continued in service of the College respondent However, the Secretary of the 2nd respondent-College by letter dated 233.1961 informed the petitioner that since the College could not get suitable personnel to look the affairs, the petitioner was not relieved then and that since the College has alternative arrangements, the College was relieving the petitioner of his duties with from the afternoon of 313.1981 and consequently directed the petitioner to hand charge to the Principal. The very next day, ‘the petitioner submitted a representation to Secretary of the 2nd respondent College stating that the petitioner had already withdrawn the letter of resignation on the date on which the petitioner had submitted the letter resignation and that if the Management had not received the letter of such withdrawal, nothing prevented the Management from relieving the petitioner then and there itself. It also represented that after a lapse of 1 1/2 years the Secretary of the 2nd respondent College issued a notice of relief based on the resignation letter dated 31.8.1979 consequently requested that orders issued by the Secretary directing the petitioner to over charge might be cancelled and that the petitioner should be permitted to continue service. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the Director of Collegiate Education. Having received no relief from the aforesaid representations to the Secretary well as to the Director of Collegiate Education, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Government, the third respondent herein and the 3rd respondent by G.O.Ms.No.1278, Department of Education, Science and Technology, dated 18.16.1982, considered all aspects of the matter and set aside the order of the Secretary dated 23.3.1981 relieving petitioner from service and also directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service with immediate effect. However, while passing the said order, the Government observed follows: The Government have examined the appeal in detail in consultation with the Director Collegiate Education. It is seen that the management did not take any action either to accept or reject the resignation letter of Thiru V.R.Palaniswami. If the real intention of management was to continue him in service indefinitely till they secure a suitable hand should have informed the appellant in writing that his resignation would be accepted when suitable person was available. There is no (sic.) written order produced by management in having done so. There is also no evidence in support of their contention the resignation of Thiru V.R.Palaniswami was postponed with his consent. Thiru Palanisamy tendered his resignation on 31.8.1979 and is reported to have withdrawn the same on the same day. The management has issued orders on 23.3.1981 relieving service based on the above resignation letter. If the individual withdraws his resignation should not be relieved from service (sic.). In as much as (sic) it is stated that without considering his withdrawal letter of resignation the management has passed orders relieving him from service or interprets (sic.) to his disadvantage, an appeal could lie under Sec.20 the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Act, 1976. In view of this, the management should followed the procedure followed in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, and Rules. Since the management has not done so, before inflicting the punishment individual its order is not maintainable in law. The Government therefore direct that orders of C.B.M. College, Coimbatore relieving Thiru V.R.Palanisamy, Head clerk be set and he should be reinstated in service with immediate effect. ” Aggrieved by the said order of the Government, the 2nd respondent herein preferred appeal before the Private Colleges Appellate Tribunal, Madras, and the said tribunal order dated 29.7.1983 in T.AC.No.6 of 198.2, considered the matter and ultimately came the conclusion that the order of the Government could not be sustained on the grounds which the Government allowed the appeal and consequently, set aside the order of Government and allowed the appeal. The tribunal has said, "So far as the question of withdrawal of the resignation submitted by the 2nd respondent, is to be said that the Government has not acted on any established fact of the withdrawal. The tribunal has said, "So far as the question of withdrawal of the resignation submitted by the 2nd respondent, is to be said that the Government has not acted on any established fact of the withdrawal. is stated in its order that the 2nd respondent is reported to have withdrawn the resignation on the same day i.e., on 31.8.1979. It is to be observed that there is not an iota of to show that the 2nd respondent has withdrawn his resignation submitted by 31.8:1979. Simply because the management of the College has not accepted the resignation till after 1 1/2 years will not by itself go to establish that, the 2nd respondent has withdrawn the resignation. The 2nd respondent, if at all has withdrawn the resignation, he should sent the withdrawal letter separately, or got back the letter of resignation and made endorsement on that with regard to his withdrawal. He has not done any of these acts. if the withdrawal was only oral, he could have taken steps for getting back the resignation. There is no evidence to show that he has taken even this step of getting the resignation letter that he has submitted. The allegation is that the college authorities have not accepted his resignation during the period of about 1 1/2 years. It is all the necessary, there (sic.) that the second respondent should have issued a notice College requesting them to give him back the resignation letter that he has submitted, fact he has withdrawn his resignation. In the absence of any one of these acts on the second respondent and in the absence of any evidence showing that his resignation had been withdrawn, I am of the view that the second respondent withdrawn his resignation........In our case, the second respondent has submitted resignation letter on 31.8.1979. From the wordings of that letter, it is apparent that resigning the post of Head Clerk, not because of any force given by the college, but other hand he was resigning due to his own violation (sic). He has not whispered that he dissatisfied with the conditions of service or with the attitude of the management college towards him. But on the other hand, he has thanked the governing body college for their co-operation and help given to him for the past five years. He has not whispered that he dissatisfied with the conditions of service or with the attitude of the management college towards him. But on the other hand, he has thanked the governing body college for their co-operation and help given to him for the past five years. This expression gratitude and thanks by the 2nd respondent to the college authorities in his resignation will not by any stretch of imagination go to show that the resignation has been involuntary forced by the college. The resignation submitted by the second respondent is only voluntary, pure and simple. In Jagadeesan v. Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College, (1981)1 M.L.J. the High Court of Madras has observed that, the order passed against the appellant does ex facie disclose any stigma or penal consequences against the appellant. It is merely termination order simpliciter. The order is not based on any misconduct of stigma tic conduct on the part of the appellant. Therefore, he could not come within the meaning of "otherwise terminated". The words "otherwise terminated" should be read with preceding "dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank". Above all, His Lordship Justice Mohan in v. R.Jesudasan, 96L.W. 349, has stated that "in a case of voluntary resignation it is not management which puts an end to the services. The concerned teacher states that he not want to serve only longer. The management says, if that be so, they have no objection. Strictly speaking, it is not a case of an offer or acceptance as is stated in common parlance. This will be equally so inspite of the fact that the resignation comes into effect only acceptance. It cannot be contended that it is by the acceptance the resignation becomes complete and therefore, it is the management that puts an end to the services. This stretching the idea unduly. As observed above, the employee, by his act, desires that relieved to which the management has no objection. In other words, that termination brought about by the employee’s own volition". Under these circumstances, it cannot be by any stretch of imagination that the management of the appellant’s College has terminated the services of the 2nd respondent by way of any punishment. It is only as a result voluntary resignation submitted by the 2nd respondent that he has been relieved of the of Head Clerk. Under these circumstances, it cannot be by any stretch of imagination that the management of the appellant’s College has terminated the services of the 2nd respondent by way of any punishment. It is only as a result voluntary resignation submitted by the 2nd respondent that he has been relieved of the of Head Clerk. Therefore, it is not necessary that the College authorities should have followed the procedure prescribed under the Act. It is only in a case of dismissal, removal or reduction in the rank or otherwise terminating the service of the employee that the College authorities should follow the procedure prescribed under Act. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the Government could not be sustained on the second ground also." Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issue writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order of the Private Colleges Appellate Madras, in T.A.C.No.6 of 1982, dated 29th July, 1983. 2. Mr.Chandru, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that it disputed that the petitioner had submitted a letter of resignation on 31.8.1979, but contended that on the very same day in pursuance of the persuasion of the staff members the college, the petitioner had withdrawn the said resignation by giving a letter Secretary. The learned counsel further contended that if really the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation letter, nothing prevented the college from relieving the petitioner from service immediately. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent college did not take step in pursuance of the letter of resignation, presumably by the reason of the fact petitioner had withdrawn the letter of resignation on the very same day. The learned further contended that the Government have considered this aspect of the matter found that the procedure prescribed with reference to the submission of letter of withdrawal and acceptance of withdrawal had not, the Government allowed the appeal. Learned further con tended that the tribunal without considering the materials placed before Government proceeded on the basis that there was no evidence on record to show petitioner had withdrawn the letter of resignation and in the absence of any evidence on the side of the 2nd respondent-college, the tribunal could not come conclusion that the letter of resignation was not withdrawn by the petitioner. The counsel further contended that the tribunal proceeded on misappreciation of the letter of resignation had not been withdrawn and erred in holding that in so far letter of resignation was a voluntary one, the procedure prescribed under the Act be followed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the resignation given by the writ petitioner was not withdrawn as alleged by him and the after having considered this aspect in detail found that in the absence of any evidence show that the petitioner’s letter of resignation had been withdrawn, it cannot be the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation. Once when the tribunal has given finding on fact, this court exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution conduct a roving enquiry on the findings on facts. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted the resignation voluntarily and in such a case, the question of following the procedure prescribed arise. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was relieved as a result resignation and it cannot be said that the act of the respondents would amount termination of the services of the petitioner. 4. Considering the relevant contentions of the parties, it cannot be disputed petitioner has submitted his resignation on 31.8.1979. It is the case of the writ that immediately thereafter, on persuasion of the staff members, the petitioner withdrawn the letter of resignation. The Appellate Authority third respondent herein taken note of all the materials available on record and proceeded on the basis petitioner had withdrawn the letter of resignation and ultimately allowed the appeal the petitioner. Further, the tribunal has found that there is no satisfactory evidence record to show that the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation submitted by him. assuming that the petitioner had not withdrawn the resignation letter submitted by for the 2nd respondent -College to follow the procedure prescribed before the petitioner relieved from service. It is relevant in this context to consider the statutory contained in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and framed thereunder. 5. assuming that the petitioner had not withdrawn the resignation letter submitted by for the 2nd respondent -College to follow the procedure prescribed before the petitioner relieved from service. It is relevant in this context to consider the statutory contained in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and framed thereunder. 5. Sec.14 read with Sec.55 of the Act provides that the college committee shall power to take disciplinary action against teachers and other persons of the private Rule 11(2)(i) of the rule framed therein provides that the committee of every college enter into an agreement in Form 7-C in the case of employees other than teachers the instant case, the petitioner is an employee employed as per Rule 11 (2)(i) of the Rules, which requires that the committee should enter into an agreement in Form 7 under the Rules. Clause (9) contained in Form 7-C agreement framed as per Rule 11(2)(i) the rules provides that such employee shall be entitled to have his/her services terminated either by giving to the college committee, three months’ notice there of in writing paying the college committee three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the petitioner had withdrawn the letter of resignation on the very same day and that the appellate authority proceeded the basis that the petitioner had not withdrawn the letter of resignation based materials available on record. Even assuming that there is no letter of resignation, respondent-college could have followed the procedure prescribed as per clause (9) in Form 7-C framed under Rule 11(2)(i) of the Rules. In the instant case, the said procedure was not followed. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has forwarded the resignation only to the Secretary of the college and not to the college committee. The committee had not taken any decision on the letter of resignation given by the petitioner it is only the college committee that has to take a decision in the event of any resignation is given by any employee. 6. Even if the petitioner has, given a letter of resignation, his services can be terminated by following the procedure as contemplated under Clause 9 of Form-7C framed under 11(2)(i). 6. Even if the petitioner has, given a letter of resignation, his services can be terminated by following the procedure as contemplated under Clause 9 of Form-7C framed under 11(2)(i). By reason of the fact that the 2nd respondent-college has not followed procedure prescribed under the statutory provisions, the impugned, order relieving petitioner from service, is not sustained in law. In these circumstances, the petitioner the decision of a division bench of this court in R.Jesudasan v. K.Selvarajan, (1989)1 470, wherein it is held that when a statute provides that a particular act has to conform particular prescription, method other than the one prescribed, if adopted, will sanction in law and any other view to be taken will be tending to render the procedure prescribed negatory and meaningless. That was a case where the Division Bench occasion to consider the case of a Headmaster of a school, who originally submitted resignation and ultimately made a claim that such resignation was obtained by duress coercion. The Headmaster was relieved of the post and accepting the resignation submitted by him. While considering the question as to whether the service Headmaster was validly terminated or not, the Division Bench observed: “At the relevant point of time, condition 9 alone, on the aspect of resignation, remained the Statute Book. Though it apparently looks as if it is intended to benefit only the school, when it speaks about the teacher giving notice for prescribed periods of payments in lieu of such notice, it is not apparently and inherently so. This condition to be viewed as the only meagre safeguard for the teacher against the capricious conduct on the part of the private school, in cutting off the services of the teacher throwing him out of employment overnight..... ” It is also observed that if the teacher could go out of service on his own volition only condition 9, that must be viewed atleast as a slender safeguard against resignation place by force or coercion or undue influence. It is specifically observed by the Bench the teacher had not conformed to the statutory prescriptions, the private school have ignored the letter of resignation and insisted for satisfying the statutory prescriptions it had not done so, it had to, and in fact it has run the risk and must race the consequent upon breach of law. It is specifically observed by the Bench the teacher had not conformed to the statutory prescriptions, the private school have ignored the letter of resignation and insisted for satisfying the statutory prescriptions it had not done so, it had to, and in fact it has run the risk and must race the consequent upon breach of law. It is also held that the resignation being no resignation the eye of law, the non-entertaining or discontinuing the services of the headmaster certainly fall within the ambit of the above set of expressions and if so, violation being with reference to non-obtaining of the approval as per Sec22 of the Act, the termination got to be set aside. The Division Bench further observed that when the private school not comply with the statutory prescription and fulfil the conditions precedent to its dispensing with the services of the staff, its action will have to be held as Having regard to these expressions in the decision, once when the employee is governed the service conditions as per the statutory provisions, either the employee or the cannot escape by saying that they are entitled to overlook the provisions of the reason that the employee had submitted his resignation letter voluntarily. Even assuming that the employee has submitted the letter of resignation voluntarily, that has to be in conformity with the statutory provisions. If that does conform to the statutory provisions, that cannot be treated as valid in law and has ignored. In the instant case, even assuming that the petitioner had not withdrawn the of resignation, it was addressed only to the Secretary of the College and not to the committee, which is the competent authority to initiate action on the letter of resignation. Since the petitioner had not submitted his letter to the college committee, such letter, be valid in law and that has to be ignored. It is also to be considered that in the instant the college itself has not taken any decision and that the college committee has not the petitioner of his duties and consequently, the authority who is competent to relieve petitioner of his duties, has not relieved the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be considered that there is a valid termination of service of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid the impugned order by which the petitioner was relieved from duties is not sustainable decision of the tribunal that in case of voluntary resignation, the authorities need conform to the statutory provisions, cannot be sustained in the face of the decision Division Bench referred to hereinabove. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed impugned order is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.