V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is when an employee tenders his resignation which is accepted by the employer, still the employer is under legal duty to communicate the acceptance to the employee or not. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 5. 1. 1984 as Clerk-cum-cashier in Mainpuri Kshetriya Kisan gramin Bank. Mainpuri. He joined on 10. 1. 1984. On 27. 6. 1986 he resigned from service. The resignation was accepted by the Chairman on the same day. He withdrew his resignation on 24. 6. 1992. In this petition filed against the order dated 24. 6. 1992, the petitioner claims that he resigned from service as he was suffering from Manic Depressive Psychosis from 27. 6. 1987 to 24. 6. 1992. In support of his illness, he has filed medical certificates of Dr. Shiv Om Varshneya along with supplementary affidavit. The petitioner further states that after he was cured of the aliment, he gave his joining report on 24. 6. 1992 which was not accepted by the respondents by letter dated 26. 6. 1992 on the ground that the petitioner had resigned earlier. The petitioner in his joining report dated 24. 6. 1992 stated that he was withdrawing his resignation given on 27. 6. 1987. ( 3 ) SHRI Shyam Narain learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner resigned on 27. 6. 1987. The resignation of the petitioner had to be accepted by the respondents under regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Staff Service Regulations, which provides that an employee has to communicate his intention to leave the services of the bank in writing and one months notice is required in such cases. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner urged that prior to expiry of period of one month resignation of the petitioner could not have been accepted. Shri Ashok Bhushan, the learned counsel for the respondent bank, urged that once the petitioner relinquished his office voluntarily, it was open to the respondents either to accept it on the same day or within a period of one month or thereafter. ( 4 ) IN the case of Moti Ram v. Param Dev and another, AIR 1993 SC 1662 , the Apex Court has laid down that the resignation can be unilateral, bilateral or prospective. ( 4 ) IN the case of Moti Ram v. Param Dev and another, AIR 1993 SC 1662 , the Apex Court has laid down that the resignation can be unilateral, bilateral or prospective. The observations in this regard are quoted below: "if the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority. The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in praesenti. A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the dale of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intention to relinquish, e. g. , acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. " ( 5 ) IN the light of this decision, the question is what was the nature of petitioners resignation, it was not prospective. It could be unilateral or bilateral. In the former, the resignation takes effect from the date it was communicated to the competent authority. Since the resignation was communicated on the same day, it became effective immediately and could not be withdrawn subsequently. If it was bilateral, then it becomes effective from the date of acceptance. The chairman accepted it on the same day. But it became effective after expiry of one month. If the petitioner would have withdrawn before one month, something could be said in his favour. The petitioner, however, withdrew after expiry of one month. It could not help him. If it was bilateral, then it becomes effective from the date of acceptance. The chairman accepted it on the same day. But it became effective after expiry of one month. If the petitioner would have withdrawn before one month, something could be said in his favour. The petitioner, however, withdrew after expiry of one month. It could not help him. ( 6 ) THE relevant Regulation 10 (1) of Staff Service Regulations is extracted below : "termination of Service by notice.-- (a) An officer or employee shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving notice in writing to the Chairman of the Bank of his intention to leave or discontinue the service. (b) The period of notice required shall be : (i) Three months in the case of officers, and (ii) One month in the case of other employees. (c) In case of breach by an employee of the provisions of this sub-regulation, he shall be liable to pay the bank as compensation a sum equal to his pay for the period of notice required of him. (d) He shall also be liable to refund the pay or allowance or both, if any, drawn by him while on training and make good the training expenses, incurred by the Bank or sponsor bank for deputing him for training. (e) In exceptional circumstances the payment of such compensation and refund may be waived by the Chairman, at his discretion. " ( 7 ) THE Regulation entitles employees to leave the service after giving one months notice. Clauses (c) and (d) of the Regulation show that his right should be exercised in the manner indicated in clauses (a) and (b), otherwise the employee can be penalised. The marginal note shows that the Regulation deals with the manner of termination of service, that is, notice by the employee. The Regulation does not require acceptance. The letter sent by the petitioner states that he was unable to do service of the bank due to his physical ailment and family reasons. He had requested that the letter may be treated as prior information and necessary action may be taken so that there may be no difficulty in petitioners getting his salary and arrears. The letter sent by the petitioner states that he was unable to do service of the bank due to his physical ailment and family reasons. He had requested that the letter may be treated as prior information and necessary action may be taken so that there may be no difficulty in petitioners getting his salary and arrears. The petitioner having expressed the desire to be relieved immediately by treating the letter as prior intimation, the respondent did not act contrary to the Regulation in accepting his resignation on same day which became effective after one month. ( 8 ) THE other submission of Shri Shyam Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even assuming that the respondents could have accepted the resignation of the petitioner on the same day, even then the resignation was required to be communicated to the petitioner by the respondents and he places reliance on the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika. AIR 1966 SC 1313 . In this judgment the Apex Court held as under : "it is plain that the mere passing of an order of dismissal would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. If the appointing authority passed an order of dismissal, but does not communicate it to the officer concerned, theoretically it is possible that unlike in the case of a judicial order pronounced in Court, the authority may change its mind and decide to modify its order. It may be that in some cases the authority may feel that the ends of justice would be met by demoting the officer concerned rather than dismissing him. An order of dismissal passed by the appropriate authority and kept with itself, cannot be said to take effect unless the officer concerned knows about the said order and it is otherwise communicated to all the parties concerned. " ( 9 ) AN order of dismissal passed against an employee is entirely different from a letter of resignation voluntarily tendered by an employee relinquishing his office. In the matter of resignation, the employee is fully aware about the consequences which shall follow after his resignation. " ( 9 ) AN order of dismissal passed against an employee is entirely different from a letter of resignation voluntarily tendered by an employee relinquishing his office. In the matter of resignation, the employee is fully aware about the consequences which shall follow after his resignation. Therefore, the acceptance of it is not required to be communicated to the employee concerned because normally a letter of resignation takes effect from the moment it is tendered and where it is bilateral, its formal acceptance by the authority concerned. Once the resignation becomes effective as explained by the Apex Court either when it is communicated or when it is accepted by the competent authority, then its operation does not further depend on communication. That is only a ministerial act. Since on the same day the resignation was accepted by the respondents, therefore, merely because acceptance of resignation was not communicated to the petitioner cannot render the acceptance of resignation to be illegal or invalid. The petitioner himself desired action to be taken immediately to retire him. In the circumstances there was no necessity to communicate it. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.