M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has brought under challenge the impugned order of acceptence of resignation alleged to have been tendered somewhere in the year 1985 and/or 1986 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE inpugned order of acceptance of resignation is dated 20. 12. 1990, that is to say, it is passed after a lapse of about 5 years. The facts of the petitioners case, shortly stated, are: the petitioner was appointed and serving as Civil Supervisor in the office of executive Engineer (R and B), Vadodara. since 6th December 1976. The petitioner had an occasion to obtain No Objection Certificate for proceeding to U. S. A. and he in fact had an occasion to proceed to U. S. A. and after return from U. S. A to resume his duty as Civil supervisor at Vadodara. It is the case of the petitioner that he was thereafter required to proceed on leave upto 20. 6. 1985 and was to resume duty on 21. 6. 1985. However, due to his illness he could not join duty between 21. 6. 1985 and 7. 2. 1986. As stated in his application dated 7. 2. 1986 wherein he had pointed out the fact with regard to his ill-health. He submitted necessary medical certificates in that respect. He prayed for granting sick leave that was to his credit and for being allowed to resume duty. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to resume duty and that resulted in accelerating the tension on the petitioners mind and that in turn resulted in the petitioner having had to under- go treatment of psychiatrist. It is the case of the petitioner that during this period when he was under the treatment of psychiatrist he had submitted the resignation from his service. Thus, according to his say he submitted his resignation from his service during the period of his mental disorder. After a span of about 4 years treatment the petitioner became fit to resume his duty and as such he submitted his application dated 22. 1. 1990 for withdawal of his resignation which was not accepted till that date and for resumption of duty. As per the communication dated 30. 4. After a span of about 4 years treatment the petitioner became fit to resume his duty and as such he submitted his application dated 22. 1. 1990 for withdawal of his resignation which was not accepted till that date and for resumption of duty. As per the communication dated 30. 4. 1990 the respondents demanded fitness certificate from a Civil Surgeon in order to enable further action on the petitioners application being taken. The petitioner submitted appropriate fitness certificates as particularised in the petition. Inspite of the aforesaid facts the respondendts issued impugned order dated 22. 12. 1990 accepting the petitioners resignation. ( 3 ) IN the background of the aforesaid facts I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Katha Gajjar, learned A. G. P. for the respondents. ( 4 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order of acceptance of resignation refers to communication dated 21. 3. 1986 which, according to the learned A. G. P. , would refer to some communication forwarded to the higher authority in respect of the petitioners resignation. That does not take the matter any where. On the contrary it is not understandable where the matter got stuck-off between 21. 3. 1986 and 20. 12. 1990 when the impugned order was passed. Obviously that would be a matter of enquiry because it would show what leghargy must be there in the movement of file concerning the petitioners resignation. Be that it may, it is an admitted fact that prior to 20. 12. 1990 the petitioners resignation has not been accepted and the petitioner had an occasion to apply for resumption of duty. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that this application would not tentamount to saying that petitioner was withdrawing from his resignation. This argument cannot be accepted for two reasons, firstly, It is the case of the petitioner that he had an occasion to tender resignation during the period when he was suffering from mental dis-order, and secondly when he had expressed his intention to resume duty after having recovered from his mental dis-order. He clearly intended to serve the respondents rather than to withdraw from the service. Therefore, in substance the application should be held to have an effect of withdrawing from the resignation. He clearly intended to serve the respondents rather than to withdraw from the service. Therefore, in substance the application should be held to have an effect of withdrawing from the resignation. ( 5 ) AS a matter of fact the petitioners application has been processed further and medical certificate with regard to the petitioners fitness had been requisitioned. The petitioner had produced necessary fitness certificates from the Civil Surgeon as can be seen from Annexure : G. In the facts of the case therefore it has to be found that before resignation came to be accepted after such a long time as 4 or 5 years the petitioner had an occasion to withdraw his resignation as can be seen from the facts noted above. ( 6 ) IT is well settled that an employee can withdraw his resignation at any time before he is actually relieved from his duties or at least before his resignation has been accepted. It is also so stated by the learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal. Ernakulam in K. Satheesan vs. Deputy Director General. Marine Geology Division, reported in 1990 (vol. 12), Administrative Tribunal Cases, at page: 55, on a reference to the decisions in the case of Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Misra, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301 , Jai Ram vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1954 SC 584 and Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180 . ( 7 ) IN the result this petition shall have to be allowed. The impugned order of accepting the petitioners resignation is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service without backwages, but with continuity of service within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this direction. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted. .