Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of the 1st respondent made in letter No. 15(12)/99/D (Med), dated 28.6.1999 and the order of the 2nd respondent made in letter No. 66797/PR&R/RR/98/DGMS-1A, dated 1.6.1998. By the said orders the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner seeking for permission to his request for resignation. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was commissioned as an Officer in the Indian Army on 24.12.1988 and after his completion of intership in Military Hospital at Secunderabad, the petitioner underwent an advance course in pediatrics in Armed Forces Medical College at Pune from December, 1992 to December, 1995. After serving in various places, finally the petitioner was transferred to Military Hospital at Wellington, Nilgiris. Due to some personal problems like the ill-health of the father of the petitioner and his parents are living separately at Secunderabad with no one to look after them and their properties and the petitioner's father was undergoing treatment at Military Hospital, Secunderabad and conjugal disharmony between the petitioner and his wife due to separation as she was unwilling to accompany the petitioner to the places where the petitioner is transferred, he applied for resignation during February, 1998. On the basis of the said resignation letter, the petitioner and his wife were interviewed by his immediate superior officer who finally recommended and forwarded the application of resignation of the petitioner with remarks that the application was genuine and need sympathetic consideration. However, the 2nd respondent in his letter dated 1.6.1998 rejected the application of the petitioner for resignation as, "application dated 20.2.1998 in respect of the above named officer seeking premature retirement has been considered and rejected by the Competent Authority." Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner submitted a statutory complaint on 16.9.1998 to the 1st respondent who by his letter dated 28.6.1999 rejected the same on the ground that, "the grounds for seeking resignation are all routine in nature and the officer has also a service liability upto December, 2002." It is against these orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petitionThe learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders would contend that the reasons adduced by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner for resignation is totally unjustifiable and is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore the orders are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, submitted, that the application of the petitioner for resignation was rejected since the petitioner could have provided medical care to his father by keeping the latter with him because he himself is a Doctor working in a military hospital and so far as the conjugal disharmony between the petitioner and his wife, it was his own personal choice to marry a professional and let her work independently and separately and these problems are common to many officers of his age and service. Further, the petitioner had done advance course in pediatrics from AFMC, Pune from December, 1992 to December, 1995 and has seven years liability till December, 2002. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was not accepted by the Competent Authority. I have considered the rival submissions. The petitioner has applied for permission on the ground that the petitioner has to look after his age-old parents and there is a conjugal disharmony between him and his wife due to separation as the petitioner's wife is not willing to go to the place where the petitioner is transferred and that the parents of the petitioner are living alone and there is no one to look after them. While the said application was considered by the impugned order dated 1.6.1998 the 2nd respondent has merely stated that the request of the petitioner seeking for "premature retirement" has been considered and rejected by the Competent Authority. The said order does not give any reason that was relied upon by the Competent Authority for rejecting the request of the petitioner for resignation. Moreover the application of resignation has been treated as premature retirement. The 1st respondent while considering the application of the petitioner as against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 1.6.1998 has equally passed an order rejecting the request on the ground that the grounds for seeking resignation are all routine in nature and the officer has also service liability upto December, 2002. Based on the reasons given by the respondents, it is to be now considered whether such reasons adduced by the respondents could be justified for rejecting the application of the petitioner for resignationThe power of the respondents to reject the application of the petitioner for resignation is not in dispute. Based on the reasons given by the respondents, it is to be now considered whether such reasons adduced by the respondents could be justified for rejecting the application of the petitioner for resignationThe power of the respondents to reject the application of the petitioner for resignation is not in dispute. However, the question is whether such power could be exercised in the manner and for the reasons contained in the impugned orders is justifiable. Normally, a resignation by an officer would require to be accepted by the employer in order to be effective. The employer can also refuse to accept the resignation on the ground when an officer's continuance in service for a specific period is necessary to meet exigencies in a service and alternative arrangements cannot be made and for adequate and justifiable reasons. However, when such discretionary powers are vested in the Authorities, the same should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner. The impugned orders do not refer to any of the grounds as to whether the continuance in service for a specific period is necessary to meet exigencies in the service and alternative arrangements cannot be made. The reasons adduced by the respondents to refuse to accept the resignation of the petitioner on the ground that the grounds for resignation is "routine in nature" cannot in any way be accepted as either adequate and or justifiable. The Delhi High Court in the judgment reported in Major Pahul Shukla v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 III AD (Del.) 698, while considering the resignation in the army service has held as follows: "An application for resignation may be rejected if it is not based on adequate and justifiable reasons. The overriding consideration is whether the officer's continuance in service for a specific period is necessary to meet exigencies in a service and alternative arrangements cannot be made. Even in such a case the application for resignation cannot be rejected. It can only be held in abeyance. The ground on which the application has been turned down is the necessity of the petitioner continuing in service to meet exigencies thereof. That cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. It may be a ground for keeping the application in abeyance." The Apex Court in a judgment reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. That cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. It may be a ground for keeping the application in abeyance." The Apex Court in a judgment reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. 1986 II CLR 322 S.C. 156, while considering the general principles to be followed in considering the application for resignation has held 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." A prayer for resignation has to be dealt with on different footing as the discretionary power vests in the authority taking decision on application for resignation is limited and circumscribed. In this case, the petitioner has given sufficient reasons in his application seeking for permission to resign and the said reasons cannot be rejected on the ground that the reasons are all routine in nature. Furthermore, even in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, except saying that the Competent Authority has rejected, no reason is adduced in the said order. In my considered view, both the impugned orders are also liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind to the reasons given by the petitioner for making his application for resignation. In the absence of my adequate and justifiable reason in the impugned orders, both the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly are liable to be set asideIn view of the above finding, both the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 30872 of 2000 is closed.