JUDGMENT Mathur, C.J. -- 1. As both the aforesaid appeals are connected, hence both of them (L.P.A. 93/97 & LP A 97/97) are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. This is an appeal (L.P.A. No. 93/97) filed by the appellant-M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.1997, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 16.8.1990 whereby the resignation of the respondent/petitioner-Rakesh Kumar Gupta was accepted by the appellant-M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation. 3. Another appeal (L.P.A. No. 97/97) is filed by the petitioner/appellant-Rakesh Kumar Gupta against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.1997, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed his writ petition but no payment of back wages has been paid; therefore, he has filed the present appeal for payment of back wages. 4. For convenient disposal of both the aforesaid appeals, the facts given in L.P.A. No. 93/97 (M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta) are taken into consideration. 5. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/petitioner was appointed as a Financial Advisor-cum-Company Secretary of the M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), by order dated 30.6.1986. It is alleged that on account of some unpleasant situation, the respondent-Rakesh Kumar Gupta submitted his resignation on 28.7.1990. The resignation letter dated 28.7.1990 reads as under:- "I am not interested to continue my services with M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Hence, I am submitting my resignation. This may please by treated as my 3 (three) months notice with effect from 28.7.1990." The resignation of the respondent was accepted by appellant/Corporation by its order dated 16.8.1990. It appears that after acceptance of resignation, the respondent/petitioner by his communication dated 18.8.1990 made a request that he may be permitted to withdraw his letter of resignation dated 28.7.1990 and he further prayed that the order dated 16.8.1990 by which his resignation is accepted, be cancelled. 6. The allegation of the respondent/petitioner was that he was harassed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and he was humiliated; therefore, he submitted the aforesaid resignation. 7. The appellant/Corporation denied the allegation of harassment. 6. The allegation of the respondent/petitioner was that he was harassed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and he was humiliated; therefore, he submitted the aforesaid resignation. 7. The appellant/Corporation denied the allegation of harassment. It is al1eged that the Corporation had to suffer immense losses and problems as a result of the respondent/petitioner's inefficiency and inactive role in discharging his duties. It is alleged that the matter came up before the Board on 18.6.1990 and 18.7.1990, in which it was decided to issue a show cause notice to the respondent/petitioner asking his explanation. It was also resolved that in case the explanation submitted by the respondent/petitioner is not satisfactory, departmental enquiry may be initiated against him. It appears that the respondent/petitioner came to know about this affairs and he tendered his resignation. In this back ground, the question before the learned single Judge was whether the resignation given by the respondent/petitioner on 28.7.1990, which was accepted by the Corporation on 16.8.1990, which was sought to be revoked by the respondent/petitioner by communication dated 18.8.1990, before expiry of period of three months, can be said to be rightly accepted by the Corporation before expiry of three months' period. 8. The service condition of the respondent/petitioner is governed by the Regulations framed by the Board and the relevant Regulation 23 which has bearing on subject, reads as under :- "R. 23 (1): No employee shall resign from the service of the Corporation except by giving such notice as he would have received under Rule 19 or 22 as the case may be, if his services were terminated. (2) Resignation may be accepted by the appointing authority with immediate effect or at any time before the expiry of the period of notice in which case an employee shall be required to pay proportionately in respect of unexpired period of notice given by him. In case, a shorter period of notice is accepted at the request of an employee, he shall be entitled to receive his pay and allowances only in respect of actual period spent on duty in the Corporation. (3) An employee leaving the service of the Corporation without giving proper notice shall be liable to penal action as the management may decide and will be wholly responsible for the consequences thereof." 9. (3) An employee leaving the service of the Corporation without giving proper notice shall be liable to penal action as the management may decide and will be wholly responsible for the consequences thereof." 9. The learned single Judge after considering the matter, came to the conclusion that since the letter of resignation dated 28.7.1990 gave a period of three months' notice w.e.f. 28.7.1990; the Corporation could not have accepted the resignation prior to the date of expiry of the notice period. Since there was three months' notice period and it is open for the incumbent to revoke the resignation before expiry of three months. In the present case, the resignation was revoked prior to expiry of three months, but the Corporation has accepted the resignation before expiry of the period. Hence, the Corporation cannot change the date of resignation and accept it before expiry of period of three months. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent/petitioner and quashed the order dated 16.8.1990 by which the resignation was accepted. Hence, the present appeal by the Corporation. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The letter of resignation as reproduced above clearly stipulates that the respondent/petitioner submitted his resignation by giving three months' notice and the period of notice was directed to be commenced from 28.7.1990. Thus three months' notice was necessary as per the Service Regulation and the Regulation 23 as reproduced above, lays down that no employee shall resign from the service of the Corporation except by giving such notice as he would have received under Rule 19 or 22, as the case may be, if his services were terminated. But sub-clause (2) says that 'resignation may be accepted by the appointing authority with immediate effect'. Therefore, this three months' notice is necessary for the employee to give, before submitting his resignation as to the management to make necessary arrangements and it further contemplates that the employer is at liberty to accept the resignation with immediate effect or at any time before expiry of notice period, and in that case, the employee shall be required to pay proportionately in respect of unexpired period of notice given by him. It further contemplates that in the event of giving shorter period by the employee, he will be entitled to receive his pay and allowances only in respect of actual period spent by him on duty. Sub clause-3 contemplates that if an employee does not give a notice then he shall be liable to penal action as the management may decide and he is wholly responsible for his consequences. Therefore, as per the interpretation of clause (3), it clearly transpires that if incumbent wants to resign then he will have to give three months' notice in writing. But it is a sweet will of the management that they can accept the resignation with immediate effect, waiving the full three months' period of notice. In the present case, a notice of resignation dated 28.7.1990 was given by the employee which was accepted before expiry of three months' period i.e. on 16.8.1990. When the resignation was accepted then the respondent/petitioner submitted his application for withdrawal of resignation by his communication dated 18.8.1990. That once the resignation has been accepted by the Management i.e. applying the norms and principles of the communication that once offer has been accepted and completed then the same cannot be revoked. Therefore, once resignation has been accepted by the Management, subsequent revocation by the incumbent on 18.8.1990 is a futile. But the question is whether the management can accept the resignation before expiry of three months' period or not. 11. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal ( AIR 1989 SC 1083 ). In that case, where a permanent officer in the Punjab National Bank sent a communication to the Bank resigning from services of the Bank on 21.1.1986 and added that the date of receipt of letter should be treated as date of commencement of notice period so that his resignation become effective only on 30.6.1986. However, his resignation was accepted by communication dated 7.2.1986. This was challenged before the Court and this was set aside by the High Court. Aggrieved against the order, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Hon. Supreme Court. However, his resignation was accepted by communication dated 7.2.1986. This was challenged before the Court and this was set aside by the High Court. Aggrieved against the order, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Hon. Supreme Court. The Hon. Supreme Court by referring to the Regulation 20 of the Regulations (Punjab National Bank), observed that the letter of the employee purporting to resign from future date, such resignation became effective either from that date or on expiry of three months' from the date of resignation. But if it is withdrawn before that date on which resignation would be effective then in that case, withdrawal will be legal and permissible. The Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the Bank. 12. In order to appreciate the facts in that case, the relevant provisions of law bearing on subject is important. Regulation 20 of the Punjab National Bank reads as under :- "R. 20. (1) Subject to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 16, the bank may terminate the services of any officer by giving him three months' notice in writing or by paying him three months' emoluments in lieu thereof. (2) No officer shall resign from the service of the bank otherwise than on the expiry of three months from the service on the bank of a notice in writing of such resignation. Provided further that the competent authority may reduce the period of three months, or remit the requirement of notice." By this, it clearly shows that no officer shall resign from the service of the Bank otherwise than on expiry of three months' notice in writing of such resignation. It further provided that the competent authority can reduce the period of three months or remit the requirement of notice. But, in the present case, the Regulation 23 as reproduced above, clearly postulates that the management can accept the resignation with immediate effect meaning thereby, that it is an option with the management to allow the incumbent to continue for a full period of three months' notice or if the Corporation feels that the resignation has to be accepted and it can accept forthwith. In the present case, the resignation was accepted by the Corporation before expiry of three months' notice and communicated the same to the incumbent by communication dated 16.8.1990. In the present case, the resignation was accepted by the Corporation before expiry of three months' notice and communicated the same to the incumbent by communication dated 16.8.1990. Therefore, construing the provision as it exists in the present case from that of Punjab National Bank, we are of the opinion that there is difference in the language of both the said Regulations and the Regulation of the Corporation gives a discretion to the management to accept the resignation immediately. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank (supra) is distinguishable and will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The learned Single Judge, in his order, has also cited a decision of this Court reported in 1993 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 43 = 1993 MPLJ 209 (Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others v. Rajendra Prasad Saxena) and on the basis of the decision given by the Hon. Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank (supra), that case is also distinguishable on facts as distinguished above. 14. Our attention was invited to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Gopal Chandra ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ). In that case also, letter of resignation was sent by Satish Chandra, sitting Judge of High Court of Allahabad, in which it was clearly mentioned that his resignation shall be effective on 1.8.1977, but before that, he revoked the same by his communication dated 15.7.1997. This was challenged by way of public interest litigation and the lordships of Hon. Supreme Court summarised the law in following terms :- "The general principle regarding resignation is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and Constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, givenup his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office-tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. In the case of a Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, givenup his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office-tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. In the case of a Judge of a High Court, who is a constitutional functionary and under Proviso (a) to Art. 217 (1) has a unilateral right or privilege to resign his office, his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, on his own volition, chooses to quit office. If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in presenti, the resignation terminates his office-tenure forthwith, and cannot therefore, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. But, if he by such writing, chooses to resign from a future date, the act of resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can at any time, before the arrival of that prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdrawn it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawl." Though so far as the Judge of the High Court is concerned, it is Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the general principle which has been enunciated by the Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court, is that the resignation can be revoked before it becomes effective. But, in the present case, the incumbent has resigned by giving three months' notice and as per the Regulation 23, the management can dispense with the conditions of three months' notice as it is the pleasure of the management. But an obligation is cast on the incumbent if he wants to resign, he will have to give three months' notice. But it is the sweet will of the management that it can waive with the period and it can accept the same with immediate effect. Therefore, as per the Regulation 23, the Management accepted the resignation before the full expiry of period of three months and communicated the incumbent on 16.8.1990. Hence, the resignation has become effective on 16.8.1990 and subsequent revocation by the incumbent on 18.8.1990 is of no avail. It is submitted that while accepting the letter of resignation, certain unpleasant observations have been made by the management. Hence, the resignation has become effective on 16.8.1990 and subsequent revocation by the incumbent on 18.8.1990 is of no avail. It is submitted that while accepting the letter of resignation, certain unpleasant observations have been made by the management. The learned counsel submitted that this will cast a stigma on the incumbent. It is true that when the incumbent has resigned and the management has accepted the same, there was no occasion for the management to have mentioned that on account of the improper working, the incumbent was given show cause notice for improving the financial position of the Company, but unfortunately, irregularity still continued. These observations in this communication reflect poor performance of the incumbent, while accepting the resignation. These observations were totally unwarranted and it should have been avoided. This observation does reflect improper working of the incumbent and they shall be deemed to have been expunged. But for that matter, it cannot be said that the resignation has not become effective. 15. In the result, we allow the appeal (LPA No. 93/97) of the M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and dismiss the appeal (LPA No. 97/97) of Rakesh Kumar Gupta. We set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.1997 and dismiss the writ petition (M.P. No. 228/91). No order as to costs.