Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working in the respondent Central Bank of India and because of certain domestic circumstances he wanted his transfer from Bharatpur to Jaipur on compassionate grounds to enable him to get his as well as his sons medical treatment. But ultimately not finding any favourable reply, he was compelled by the circumstances, submitted his resignation to the Regional Office of the bank on April 6, 1992, a copy of which is attached as Annexure-3 wherein after narrating the circumstances mentioned therein he had stated that he was being forced to resign. However, this resignation was withdrawn by him vide Annexure-4 dated June 26, 1992. He was being asked to explain about his absence when he was posted at Bharatpur. The petitioner did not receive any reply to the revocation of his resignation Annexure-4 till the end of November 1992, when he received a letter dated December 2, 1992 accepting his resignation dated March 16, 1992 and also relieving him from service from May 14, 1992. The petitioner states that even though his resignation was dated March 16, 1992 but actually it was submitted on April 6, 1992. He is challenging the order Annexure-6 as being illegal and contrary to Regulation 20 of the central Bank of India Service Regulations, 1979 and states that once he had withdrawn his resignation vide Annexure-4, no resignation could be accepted after letter Annexure-4. He was informed on December 2, 1992 that his letter of revocation of resignation had not been accepted and his resignation dated March 16, 1992 has been accepted w. e. f. May 14, 1992. The petitioner gave a notice to the respondents. ( 2 ) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the voluntary resignation dated march 16, 1992 was accepted by the General manager, Central Office, Bombay on May 9, 1992 which was communicated to Delhi Office vide letter dated May 14, 1992 and Jaipur regional Office was advised by letter dated may 20, 1992 and the Branch Office Bharatpur where the petitioner was last posted was informed on May 27, 1992 to the effect that his resignation has been accepted and, therefore, acceptance of resignation there was no question of revocation of resignation dated June 26, 1992 by the petitioner. The bank had only informed the petitioner that the letter of resignation cannot be accepted. The bank had only informed the petitioner that the letter of resignation cannot be accepted. ( 3 ) RULE 20 (2) of the Regulations provides that the period of notice required for the resignation shall be three months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in the Regulations provided that the competent Authority may reduce the period of three months or remit the requirement of notice. ( 4 ) THE respondent relies on the letter dated may 27, 1992 (Annexure-A) with the written statement addressed to Shri Gothwal wherein it is mentioned that it had been decided to accept the resignation of the petitioner w. e. f. March 16, 1992 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner would deposit 3 months pay in lieu of the notice period and the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,831. 00. Letter annexure-A had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount mentioned therein with the condition that his resignation could only be accepted if he deposits the amount. Yet another letter dated May 14, 1992 (Annexure-B) has been attached with the written statement; the bank had directed the Regional Manager, jaipur to ensure that the resignation is accepted on the condition No. 1 that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was to deposit 3 months pay. The letter is written to I. S. Wadhon and not to the petitioner. Vide Annexure-F as attached to the written statement, letter sent to the petitioner on June 17, 1992 was returned back with the remarks that the addressee was not available for having vacated the house. ( 5 ) THE petitioner relies on a judgment in the case of Power Finance Corporation v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, 1997 (4) SCC 280 : 1997-II-LLJ-819 wherein in case of voluntary retirement conditional order dated December 22, 1994 was passed with outstanding clerical dues where certain adjustment of the amount was to be made. It was held that unless the employee is relieved of the duty after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the officer. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the officer. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. ( 6 ) IN the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India, AIR 2000 SC 2473 : 2000 (5) SCC 621 : 2000- II-LLJ-935, the application for resignation dated October 18, 1995 for voluntary retirement was accepted on July 30, 1997. Official was relieved on september 26, 1997 and for the reason that he had withdrawn before that date, therefore, he continued to be in service. ( 7 ) RELIANCE is placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bansi Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. , 2000 (3) WLC 515 wherein no document was placed on the record to show that retirement had been accepted prior to the date of his withdrawal. It was settled law that before request of the voluntary retirement was accepted by the employer, the employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. The normal rule is that a person can withdraw his application before it is effective but it may not apply in full force where there is specific provision. It was further observed that the appellant had withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement on July 24, 1993. Authority had conveyed to the appellant that the application of voluntary retirement had been accepted, in such situation, it was held that the petitioner was not (sic) entitled to continue in service. ( 8 ) IN the case of Punjab National Bank v. P. K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175 : 1989-I-LLJ-368 where under regulation 20 (2), three months notice is a pre-condition for resignation from the service of the bank and the bank could reduce the period of such notice. On April 21, 1986 notice was given to resign w. e. f. June 30, 1986 i. e. beyond three months period, however, the bank had accepted the resignation and relieved the petitioner. Decision was challenged. On April 21, 1986 notice was given to resign w. e. f. June 30, 1986 i. e. beyond three months period, however, the bank had accepted the resignation and relieved the petitioner. Decision was challenged. It was held that the decision could take effect either on the date chosen by the employee and mentioned in the notice or on the expiry of 3 months period i. e. on April 21, 1986 but the bank could not have accepted it on any earlier date. ( 9 ) THE cases of J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1571 : 1998 (9) SCC 559 : 1999-I-LLJ-546and H. P. MC. v. Suman bihari Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1353 : 1996 (4)scc 584 : 1996-II-LLJ-665 have been cited to support the proposition. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the petitioner had resigned from service by writing that he was being forced to resign from the services. It cannot be said that it was a voluntary resignation. Even otherwise, he had withdrawn the resignation before it was communicated to the petitioner of the acceptance of resignation. Even documents being relied by the respondents have put certain conditions before the resignation could be accepted i. e. deposit an amount of Rs. 18,831. 00 i. e. 3 months pay which was not done by the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted in accordance with law. ( 11 ) THE law is well settled that before the acceptance of resignation the employee can withdraw the resignation as is the case in the present case and as such the resignation could not be made effective. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service. .