JUDGMENT 1. - The question which arises for consideration of this court in the present writ petition is as to whether resignation once tendered by a Government servant before the Authority competent to accept the same can be withdrawn after its acceptance and the date from when the resignation tendered in such circumstances would become effective ? 2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed as a constable in Rajasthan Civil Police on 10.7.1982 under the Rajasthan (Recruitment of dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Thereafter he transferred to Jaipur in the Anti-corruption Department in April, 1986. After he had served the Department for about a month he was transferred to District Churu in May, 1986 and in September, 1989 he was again transferred to the office of Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu and posted at police station, Khetri. It has further been conceded by the petitioner that on 2.4.1990 he had submitted an application for two days casual leave for 3rd and 4th April, 1990 and sought permission to leave Headquarter. Altogether 25 days casual leave was due to the petitioner but he was not allowed to proceed on leave. 3. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the competent authority was not justified in declining casual leave to the petitioner primarily on account of adverse family circumstances as his mother was ill and the petitioner also felt nervousness when his casual leave was not granted and he was not permitted to go home, as a result of which he himself became ill and suffered with acute diarrhea on 2.4.1990. He was hospitalised under the treatment of Dr. Sumer Singh at the Government Hospital and Doctor advised 7 days rest for restoration of his normal health. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner submitted his resignation vide his application, dated 2.4.1990 and in the said application he stated that it was on account of family circumstances, he may be allowed to tender his resignation from service and the said resignation was accepted by the competent authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police. Jhunjhunu vide Annexure 4, dated 24.4.1990. The petitioner was further directed to obtain No Dues Certificate and submit the same to the department. Jhunjhunu vide Annexure 4, dated 24.4.1990. The petitioner was further directed to obtain No Dues Certificate and submit the same to the department. The said certificate was issued to the petitioner on 14.6.1990 and it was mentioned in the said certificate that a sum of Rs. 1,115.00 was dues from the petitioner and the said amount was deposited by the petitioner with the competent authority on 16.3.1991. Thereafter the petitioner on second thought over the matter with regard to his resignation which he had submitted earlier on 4.4.1990 and which was accepted by the competent authority w.e.f. 24.4.1990, he applied for withdrawal of his resignation by his application which was sent through registered A.D. post on 21.6.1990 and addressed to non-petitioner No. 2 viz. D.I.G., Jaipur Range, Jaipur. In the said letter the petitioner had narrated all the circumstances under which he was compelled to tender his resignation vide Annexure 7. Thereafter the petitioner kept on sending reminders to the non-petitioners on 21.6.1990, 21.7.1990 and 31.7.19911 but his above application was rejected by non-petitioner No. 2 on 31.8.1990 and which was forwarded to the petitioner on 4.9.1990 vide Annexure 8 to 10 respectively. 4. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended at the bar that the competent authority was not justified in rejecting his request for withdrawal of his resignation vide impugned order, dated 31.7.1990 (Annexure 10). By the said letter, dated 31.7.1990 the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu i.e. the competent authority, conveyed to the petitioner in specific terms that since the submission of the resignation by the petitioner vide his application. dated 2.4.1990 was purely a voluntary act and in which he had narrated his family circumstances on account of which he had voluntarily and without exercise of any undue influence tendered his resignation and which was accepted by the competent authority w.e.f. 24.4.199,. his resignation became effective from the said date and hence it was not open to the petitioner to retract or resile from the same, the said resignation had became irrevocable and could not be withdrawn under any circumstances. 5. his resignation became effective from the said date and hence it was not open to the petitioner to retract or resile from the same, the said resignation had became irrevocable and could not be withdrawn under any circumstances. 5. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondents while controverting the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner contended at the bar that the petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation from service at his own sweet will on 4.4.1990 and which was accepted by the competent authority on 24.4.1990 and during the said period the petitioner did not present any application which would justify that he had submitted his resignation just because of non-sanction of his casual leave. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this igard is wholly untenable for the reason that if it was so then nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the competent authority by way of an application that it was as a result of rejection of the application for grant of casual leave that he had been compelled to tender his resignation. 6. In support of his aforesaid contentions learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the provisions of Rule 22(d) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short "RSR") which mandates that a resignation becomes effective from the date of its acceptance and the Government servant is relieved of his duties soon thereafter. When once the resignation had become effective, a Government servant ceases to be in Government service; and any request made subsequently for withdrawal of the resignation shall neither be entertained nor considered. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant documents on the record. 8. Prima-facie I am of the considered opinion that resignation once tendered by a Government servant and accepted by the competent authority, is not open to challenge by the Government servant, since it becomes effective from the date of its acceptance by the competent authority and the effective date shall be reckoned w.e.f. the date of its acceptance by the concerned authority when a Government servant ceases to be in Government service and any request made subsequently for withdrawal of his resignation should ncither.be entertained nor considered. The law has been well settled on the subject that it is incumbent upon all the authorities concerned that if such Government servant approaches for obtaining No Dues Certificate, the same should be issued to him without any loss of time. I am further of the view that it is not in public interest to retain an unwilling Government servant ' in service and since the petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation on a particular date and which had been accepted by the competent authority without any loss of time, it was not open to the petitioner to have retracted from the same on the second thought on extraneous grounds as aforesaid. I am further of the view that nothing prevented the petitioner to approach the competent authority earlier before the date of acceptance but not subsequently. It is relevant to refer to Rule 22(d) of the RSR which provides as under : `Authority competent to permit withdrawal of resignation-A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and Government servant is relieved of his duties. When resignation has become effective, a Government servant ceases to be in Government service; and any request made subsequently for withdrawal of resignation shall not be entertained and considered." 9. In this case the petitioner had also been issued No Dues Certificate without any loss of time and the petitioner had wilfully deposited his belt and had also deposited the amount due from him and thereafter he had obtained No Dues Certificate which clearly shows that he had wilfully tendered his resignation and not for any extraneous grounds for resignation which would justify the withdrawal of the same. 10. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the matter of Satya Veer Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and others : 1987(1) RLR 649 . 11. 1 have examined the ratio of the said decision an in my considered view the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the instant case for the reason that the controversy which had arisen for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court was whether the Government Servant had submitted his resignation to the competent authority and was accepted by the said authority on a particular date. He requested for withdrawal of his resignation on the ground that he had not been furnished No Dues Certificate by the authority competent to accept the resignation and he had also not been relieved from duties. The concerned Authority stated before this court that resignation was accepted before request for withdrawal was made and therefore, it could not be withdrawn by the petitioner. It was held by this court that resignation had not become effective for the two reasons-(a) No Dues Certificate was not furnished, and (b) the petitioner was not relieved of his duties and as such resignation could not be accepted by the Authority and the same could not be withdrawn by the petitioner. 12. The aforesaid circumstances are not in existence in the present case for the reason that issuance of No Dues Certificate is not the only criteria under which the resignation tendered by a Government Servant would be deemed to have become effective, since the effective date is the date when the resignation has been accepted by the competent authority. The petitioner may withdraw his resignation before its acceptance but he cannot he permitted to withdraw the same once it has been accepted by the competent authority and in this case admittedly the petitioner had not only voluntarily tendered his resignation but it had also been accepted by the competent authority and the No Dues Certificate had also been issued to him within time and he had also deposited due amount with the said authority without any protest or demur. 13. As a result of the above discussion no case is made out for interference by this court. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******