V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Assistant Teacher in Primary Pathshala. Baliyapur development Block. Jaswant Nagar. He was an employee of District Board. Etawah. He worked till 31. 12. 89 and went on medical leave from 1. 1. 90 to 15. 1. 90. When he came to resume his duties on 16. 1. 90, he was informed (hat his resignation letter dated 22. 12,89 tendered to chairman, District Board has been accepted by District Basic Education Officer. Etawah on 26. 12. 89. He made a representation to District Basic Education Officer that he never tendered resignation and had worked till 31. 12. 89 after which he was on medical leave from 1. 1. 90 to 15. 1. 90, therefore, he was illegally prevented from joining. He further stated that District Basic education Officer was his appointing authority and the petitioner being a permanent Assistant teacher could only resign after giving three months notice. It was further stated that he did not submit any resignation letter and he may be allowed to join duties. The petitioner further alleged that he is a victim of political vendetta. The resignation letter according to him was cooked up by the Chairman, District Board. Etawah. The petitioner has by the Instant writ petition, challenged the acceptance of alleged resignation letter by District Basic Education Officer. Etawah on 26. 12. 89, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 the allegations are denied and it is alleged that the petitioner resigned on his own accord voluntarily. The allegation of political reasons was denied. It is alleged that the resignation letter is In the handwriting of the petitioner. ( 2 ) 1 have heard Shri B. Ram. learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. J. Sahai learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was not present when the matter was taken up in the revised list. Shri K. S. Shukla who also appeared for respondent No. 2 did not appear. ( 3 ) ON the allegations and counter allegations, the question is whether petitioner resigned. The petitioner is alleged to have tendered his resignation letter to the Chairman of the district board who forwarded it to the Basic Shiksha Adhlkari. Shri K. S. Shukla who also appeared for respondent No. 2 did not appear. ( 3 ) ON the allegations and counter allegations, the question is whether petitioner resigned. The petitioner is alleged to have tendered his resignation letter to the Chairman of the district board who forwarded it to the Basic Shiksha Adhlkari. In the writ petition it is asserted that he never resigned and the resignation letter was forged. The respondent No. I put in appearance on 28. 3. 90 but did not file any counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. The district Basic Shiksha Adhikari who had received the alleged resignation letter forwarded by the chairman could not effectively deny these allegations. Since the allegations are not denied by respondent No. 1 by filing a counter-affidavit, the claim of the petitioner thai he did not resign and the resignation was forged lias to be accepted as correct in view of the law laid down by (he apex Court and this Court. (See Bir Singh Chauhan u. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (2)SCC (L and S) 1447, M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Kanpur and others, 1999 (62) FLR 709. ( 4 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent No. 2 has not only denied the allegations but has stated that the signature on the resignation letter is of the petitioner, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted is without any substance. He has drawn inference against petitioner by letter written by the petitioner to the Chief Minister on 25. 1. 90 that his resignation may not be accepted. It has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. The petitioner has denied that he ever resigned. The respondent No. 2 clearly misread this representation and has drawn an inference which cannot be maintained. There is no representation of 5. 1. 90. What is referred in the counter-affidavit is this representation in the bottom of which it is mentioned as 25. 1. 90. If there is any other representation, it has not been filed by respondent No. 2. There Is no material to show that the petitioner signed the alleged letter of resignation. ( 5 ) RESIGNATION is relinquishing the service voluntarily. The respondent No. 1 did not care to file counter-affidavit. 1. 90. If there is any other representation, it has not been filed by respondent No. 2. There Is no material to show that the petitioner signed the alleged letter of resignation. ( 5 ) RESIGNATION is relinquishing the service voluntarily. The respondent No. 1 did not care to file counter-affidavit. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner tendered his resignation intentionally or voluntarily. The Apex Court in Moti Ram v. Param Dev, AIR 1993 sc 1662 , has laid down as under : "as pointed out by this Court, resignation means the spontaneous relinqulshment of ones own right in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and concomitant act of its relinquishment. It has been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and conditions governing it. " Since resignation affects not only the person but his family as well, the authority should act cautiously and where the employee claims immediately that he never resigned, then it becomes duty of the authority to examine the claim carefully. The respondent No. 2 failed to discharge his responsibility in accordance with law. The order accepting the resignation, therefore, cannot be accepted. It did not result in valid discharge from service. ( 6 ) SINCE I am satisfied that this petition is liable to succeed on this ground alone. I do not propose to examine whether an employee under rules couid resign only after giving three months notice and the resignation being contrary to the rules it could not result in termination of petitioners service. ( 7 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26. 12. 89 passed by respondent annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed and the petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits of service. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of salary of the petitioner which has been revised from time to time and pay the same. The order dated 26. 12. 89 passed by respondent annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed and the petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits of service. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of salary of the petitioner which has been revised from time to time and pay the same. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 2. ( 9 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.