JUDGMENT : D.S. Sinha, J. Petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tripathi, who appeared in person, argued the case himself. For the Respondents arguments were advanced by Sri Vineet Saran. 2. The facts and events constituting facts : giving rise to instant petition, as asserted by the Petitioner, are these: Following his selection for permanent appointment on the post of Lecturer of Computer Science in the Electrical Engineering Department of Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, the Petitioner was appointed in January, 1991 on two years' probation. On 17th November, 1992, when the Petitioner was conducting viva-voce examination of the students, the Principal of the College, the Respondent No. 2, summoned him and threatened with dire consequences for not having favoured in the examination the candidates sponsored by him. He also required the Petitioner to scribble resignation under threat of physical injuries. Finally, he relieved the Petitioner from the duty by accepting his resignation letter vide order dated 17th November, 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 5' to the petition. On account of the said incident, the Petitioner was in a daze for about a month. In the meantime, the wife of the Petitioner addressed to the Board of Governors, through Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, the Respondent No. 1, a communication dated 15th December, 1991, a copy of which is Annexure 6' to the petition. By this communication, she informed that the Principal had obtained from the Petitioner resignation by force and under threat, and prayed that the said resignation be cancelled. She also prayed that the Petitioner be reinstated and the whole incident may be got inquired into through Criminal Investigation Department. Thereafter, the Petitioner also sent a telegram to the Respondent No. 1 on 18th December, 1992 asserting that the Principal had obtained his resignation under threat and by force, and urging the cancellation of the resignation and his reinstatement in service. A. photocopy of certified true copy of the Telegram issued from the concerned Telegraph office is Annexure 'I' to the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application filed on 13th December, 1996. The Petitioner also addressed to the Respondent No. 1 a communication dated 19th December, 1992 asserting that his resignation was obtained under threat and by force, and that he would like to withdraw his resignation forthwith. The Petitioner also addressed to the Respondent No. 1 a communication dated 19th December, 1992 asserting that his resignation was obtained under threat and by force, and that he would like to withdraw his resignation forthwith. A copy of this letter has been annexed as Annexure 10' to the petition. A copy of said letter is also appended to the supplementary affidavit of the Petitioner filed on 13th January, 1993. Further assertion of the Petitioner in the supplementary-affidavit filed on 13th January, 1993 is that on 19th December, 1992 he had sent a registered letter to the Chairman, Board of Governors that he had already withdrawn his resignation which must have been received by him before 26th December, 1992. A copy of this letter is Annexure 'I' to the supplementary affidavit. But despite this, a communication dated 1st January, 1993 was received by him that the Board of Directors had on 26th December, 1992 granted approval to the order of the Respondent No. 2 dated 17th November, 1992 purporting to relieve the Petitioner. A copy of this communication is Annexure 'II' to the supplementary affidavit. 3. Two separate counter-affidavits on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been filed. In these counter-affidavits, it is asserted that a written complaint was received from some girl students against the Petitioner alleging misbehaviour by him. Upon this complaint, the Respondent No. 2. appointed Dr. Paliwal, the Head of Electrical Engineering Department of the College, to enquire into the matter. When the inquiry was initiated and the Petitioner was required to attend the same on 17th November, 1992, he instead of participating in the inquiry proceedings, tendered his resignation, a copy whereof is Annexure 'C A. 3' to the affidavit of Sri S. B. L. Garg, filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. 4. On the resignation letter, the Head of Department as well as the Dean (Admin.) recommended to the Principal that the Petitioner be relieved without insisting for one month salary in lieu of notice. The Respondent No. 2 agreed with the recommendation of the Head of Department and the Dean (Admin.) and accepted the resignation of the Petitioner vide his order dated 17th November, 1992 and relieved him. The Respondent No. 2 agreed with the recommendation of the Head of Department and the Dean (Admin.) and accepted the resignation of the Petitioner vide his order dated 17th November, 1992 and relieved him. The recommendation of the Head of Department and the Dean (Admin.) and the order of the Principal accepting the resignation of the Petitioner and relieving him are to be found recorded in Annexure C A. 3' to the affidavit of the Respondent No. 1. 5. After the Petitioner was relieved, the Respondent No. 2. submitted a report to the Board of Governors, the Respondent No. 1, for approval, and the Board of Governors in its meeting on 26th December, 1992 ratified and approved the act of the Respondent No. 2 in relieving the Petitioner. 6. In the supplementary counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 2, it is asserted that the letter of the Petitioner purporting to withdraw his resignation, a copy whereof is Annexure 'I' to the supplementary affidavit, was received by the Respondents in the first week of January, 1993, much after the resignation of the Petitioner had been accepted by the Board of Governors and passing of the order of the Board of Governors and communication thereof to the Petitioner through the letter dated 1st January, 1993, a copy whereof is Annexure 'II' to the supplementary of the Petitioner. Thus, according to the: Respondents, the resignation of the Petitioner stood finally accepted. 7. To meet the above assertion, the Petitioner has filed supplementary rejoinder-affidavit asserting that the statement on behalf of the Respondents that the letters of the Petitioner withdrawing his resignation were received in January, 1993 is totally misstatement of fact and deliberate lie. According to the Petitioner, the letter of withdrawal dated 19th December, 1992 was sent through 'Speed Post" of the postal department under receipt Nos. 995, 996, 997, 998 and 999. Further assertion of the Petitioner is that the copies of the letter were also sent Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors and also to the Adviser to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 22nd December. 1992. The Petitioner also states in this affidavit that on inquiry made by him regarding delivery of his letters, the Manager of the Speed Post, G.P.O., Lucknow informed him that they were delivered to the addressee on 24th December, 1992. 1992. The Petitioner also states in this affidavit that on inquiry made by him regarding delivery of his letters, the Manager of the Speed Post, G.P.O., Lucknow informed him that they were delivered to the addressee on 24th December, 1992. The Petitioner swears that he had also sent to the Respondent No. 2 and the Head of the Electrical Engineering Department of the College letter dated 19th December, 1992 communicating the withdrawal of his resignation under registered cover vide Receipts No. 1978 and 1979 which was received by them on 22nd December, 1992. 8. Annexure 6 to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit is the photocopy of the letter of the Postal Department certifying that the letters sent by the Petitioner through Speed Post under Receipts No. 995, 996, 997, 998 and 999 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors and to the Adviser of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh were duly delivered to them on 24th December, 1992. Another photocopy of this letter is also to be found appended to the rejoinder-affidavit of the Petitioner filed in answer to the affidavit of Sri S. B. L. Garg filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. Annexure 8' to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit is photocopy of acknowledgment from the Principals office evidencing the receipt on the letter addressed by the Petitioner on 2nd December, 1992, Annexure 9' to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit is photocopy of the certificate issued by the Postal Department certifying that the letter of the Petitioner sent to the Principal of Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College and the Head of Department of the Electrical Engineering of the College under Registered Letter No. 1978 and 1979 was delivered to them on 22nd December, 1992. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, his letter withdrawing resignation was received by the Respondent No. 1 on 24th December, 1992 and by the Respondent No. 2 on 22nd December, 1992, well before its acceptance and approval by the Board of Governors. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, noticed above, the short question which arises for determination of the court is whether the resignation of the Petitioner became final by its acceptance by the Respondent No. 2 on 17th November, 1992 and approval thereof by the Respondent No. 1 on 26th December, 1992 or the Petitioner had duly withdrawn his resignation before it attained finality. 10. In the absence of some statutory provision or recognised legal principle or doctrine prohibiting to do so, what one can do, he can also undo. It is inherent right of a person to change his mind and recall his decision before it attains finality. What binds a person is his own free act which has become final. Therefore, the poposal of resignation is capable of being withdrawn before its acceptance by the appropriate authority. The acceptance of the proposal is complete as against the proposer when the letter of acceptance is put in the course of transmission to him taking it out of power of the acceptor. The proposal of resignation cannot be revoked after its acceptance is complete. 11. Communication of revocation of proposal of resignation as against accepting authority is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the authority. Till then, revocation is inoperative and the proposal of resignation remains open to acceptance. 12. Applying the above well established basic and fundamental principles pertaining to the proposal of resignation, its acceptance and revocation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 27 , held thus: If an employee makes his intention to resign his job known to the employer and the latter accepts the resignation, the contract of employment comes to an end and with it stands severed the employer-employee relationship. Under the common law, the resignation is not complete until it is accepted by the proper authority and before such acceptance, an employee can change his mind and withdraw the resignation but once the resignation is accepted, the contract comes to an end and the relationship of master and servant stands snapped. 13. It is not in dispute that the appointing authority of the Petitioner is the Board of Governors, the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, being appointing authority, the Board of Governors alone is competent to accept the resignation of the Petitioner. 13. It is not in dispute that the appointing authority of the Petitioner is the Board of Governors, the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, being appointing authority, the Board of Governors alone is competent to accept the resignation of the Petitioner. This position is also fortified by the fact that the Respondent No. 2 has in hiss order dated 17th November, 1992 stated that the resignation of the Petitioner was "accepted with immediate effect in anticipation of the approval of the Chairman, Governors/Board of Governors" and that he, indeed, sought requisite approval of the Board of Governors. 14. The fact that acceptance of the resignation of the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2 was subject to the approval of the Board of Governors leaves no room for doubt that the resignation could not become final until 26th December, 1992 on which date the acceptance is said to have been approved by the Board of Governors. 15. Thus, the Petitioner had every right to withdraw the proposal of resignation till 26th December, 1992. He exercised his right of withdrawal by sending the letter dated 19th December, 1992 to all the relevant authorities through Speed Post and registered post. Receipt of the letter of the Petitioner withdrawing his resignation by the Principal on 22nd December, 1992 is fully established from the acknowledgment of his office (Annexure 8' to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit) and the certificate of the postal department (Annexure "9" to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit) certifying that the letter of the Petitioner was delivered to the Principal on 22nd December. 1992. Likewise, the delivery and receipt of the letter of the Petitioner withdrawing his resignation to the Board of Governors on 24th December, 1992 is clinchingly established by the certificate of the postal department filed by the Petitioner along with his supplementary rejoinder-affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit filed in answer to the affidavit of Sri S.B.L. Garg filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the proposal of resignation of the Petitioner stood withdrawn before 26th December. 1992 leaving nothing for acceptance by the appropriate authority. The acceptance of the proposal of resignation of the Petitioner on 26th December, 1992 was of no consequence. The Petitioner having withdrawn his resignation well before its acceptance by the appointing authority, namely, the Board of Governors, his employment cannot be held to have come to an end. 16. 1992 leaving nothing for acceptance by the appropriate authority. The acceptance of the proposal of resignation of the Petitioner on 26th December, 1992 was of no consequence. The Petitioner having withdrawn his resignation well before its acceptance by the appointing authority, namely, the Board of Governors, his employment cannot be held to have come to an end. 16. The court, therefore, upholds the contention of the Petitioner that he had withdrawn his proposal of resignation before it was accepted and became operative and that the subsequent acceptance on 26th December, 1992 was of no legal consequence. 17. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated. 17th November, 1992 passed by the Respondent No. 2 purporting to relieve the Petitioner and the resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 26th December, 1992 communicated to the Petitioner vide communication dated 1st January, 1993, a copy whereof is Annexure 'II' to the supplementary affidavit, are quashed, The Petitioner shall be treated to have ever continued and still continuing in service and shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits of being in service. 18. There will be no order as to costs.