JUDGMENT C. S. Rajan, J. 1. In the former Original Petition the petitioner challenges Exhibit P-18 order passed by the first respondent. By Exhibit P-18 the petitioner was informed that his resignation had not been accepted by the competent authority and therefore, he had to proceed to Tandur in order to comply with the order of transfer. In the latter Original Petition the petitioner challenges Exhibit P-16 by which he was placed under suspension by the first respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he had tendered his resignation (Exhibit P-6) on 5th July 1990. Exhibit P-6 is dated 5th July 1990. It was to take effect with effect from 5th July 1990. According to the petitioner, once the petitioner resigned the job under the first respondent, the respondents have no authority either to transfer him (Exhibit P-18) or to suspend him from service (Exhibit P-16). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resignation letter takes effect with effect from 5th August 1990, i.e., one month from the date of the resignation According to the petitioner, the respondents are bound to accept the above resignation once it was tendered to them. It also takes effect automatically on the expiry of the noticed period mentioned in the resignation letter. This is the basis for challenging Exhibit P-18 in OP No. 7880 of 1990 and Exhibit P-16 in OP No. 8451 of 1990. 3. The first respondent has filed counter affidavits in both the Original Petitions. In Exhibit P-2 (c) circular produced in O.P. No. 8451 of 1990 the first respondent has clearly stated that the management reserved the right not to accept resignations of employees submitted even after giving due notice if the circumstances so warrant, i.e., if disciplinary proceedings are pending/contemplated against them. Such employees will not leave the Corporation till their resignations have been accepted and necessary orders issued. 4. The attack of the petitioner against the impugned orders is on the ground that they are violative of Art.311 of the Constitution of India. It can be easily met with the answer that the above Article applies only to Government employees. The first respondent is only a public sector undertaking and cannot be taken within definition of 'Government' as coming under Art.311 of the Constitution of India. 5. It can be easily met with the answer that the above Article applies only to Government employees. The first respondent is only a public sector undertaking and cannot be taken within definition of 'Government' as coming under Art.311 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent brought to my notice two decisions of the Supreme Court which clearly say that a resignation comes into operation only when the employer accepts the same. The above ruling also demarcates the areas where an employer can refuse the resignation on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary action or on the ground of non-completion of certain urgent work. In the ruling reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath (AIR 1986 SC 157) the Supreme Court observed as follows: "......A resignation by an employee would, however, normally Require to be accepted by the employer in order to be effective. It can be that in certain circumstances an employer would be justified in refusing to accept the employee's resignation as, for instance, when an employee wants to leave In the middle of a work which is urgent or important and for the completion of which his presence and participation are necessary. An employer can also refuse to accept the resignation when there is a disciplinary inquiry pending against the employee. In such a case, to permit an employee to resign would be to allow him to go away from the service and escape the consequences of an adverse finding against him in such an inquiry." In the ruling reported in M/s J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. State of UP ( AIR 1990 SC 1808 ) the Supreme Court made the matter clear as follows: "...... Therefore, one of the ways of terminating the contract of employment is resignation. If an employee make his intention to resign his job known to the employer and the latter accept the resignation, the contract of employment comes to an end and with it stands severed the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, one of the ways of terminating the contract of employment is resignation. If an employee make his intention to resign his job known to the employer and the latter accept 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 employer can change his mind and withdraw the resignation but once the resignation is accepted the contract comes to and end an the relationship of master and servant stands snapped........" Thus, the resignation of the petitioner cannot automatically be effective from 5th August 1990 as claimed by the petitioner in his resignation letter. It is obvious that the petitioner is under a cloud of disciplinary action when he tendered his resignation. That was also become clear when the order of suspension was passed subsequently. The circular issued by the first respondent also reserves its right not to accept a resignation when the employee is being proceeded with for disciplinary action. Therefore, I think the first respondent acted within its bounds and in accordance with law when they passed the impugned orders. Since the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted, he will be deemed to be in service of the first respondent for the purpose of completing the disciplinary action. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The Original Petitions are dismissed.