Judgment 1. The petitioner is an employee of the Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank. In this writ petition he seeks to challenge a communication from the Chairman of the Bank dated 27.10.2001 (Annexure 15) by which his resignation from the banks service was accepted with effect from the date of communication. According to the petitioner, there was no question of accepting his resignation because he had withdrawn his resignation before it could become effective on being accepted by the competent authority. 2. The material facts of the case are brief and simple. The petitioner tendered his resignation from the service of the bank by letter, dated 10.9.2001. Although it was stated in the letter that he intended to resign from immediate effect and a request was made to settle his accounts without delay, it is not in dispute that the resignation could be effective only on being accepted of the competent authority. A perusal of this letter makes it evident that at that time the petitioner was in a highly strung state of mind. Later, on 21.9.2001 the petitioner sought to withdraw his letter of resignation, stating it was submitted by him in an agitated condition. A few days later he was put under suspension by memo, dated 25.9.2001 in contemplation of a disciplinary action against him on charges of misbehaviour with his superiors. 3. In those circumstances the petitioners letter of resignation was placed before the Bankss Board of Directors and it was decided to accept his resignation, instead of proceeding against him on the charges and the impugned communication was accordingly issued to the petitioner. The subsequent letter of the petitioner by which he had sought to withdraw his resignation was apparently disregarded. 4. So far the relief sought in this writ petition is concerned the petitioner seems to be on firm grounds but from the materials on record it appears that for a long time the petitioners relationship with the bank has been far from cordial and harmonious. According to the petitioner the authorities in the bank declared him of unsound mind and sent him for check up. He was also referred to Mental Hospital at Kanke, Ranchi, from where he finally obtained a certificate of fitness to resume duties. 5. According to the petitioner the authorities in the bank declared him of unsound mind and sent him for check up. He was also referred to Mental Hospital at Kanke, Ranchi, from where he finally obtained a certificate of fitness to resume duties. 5. It may not be entirely proper for this court to make any pronouncement on this aspect of the matter but from certain letters written by the petitioner it indeed appears that he is an impulsive person and seems to get agitated rather quickly. 6. It is also to be noted that charges were pending against the petitioner when the bank accepted his resignation from service. In those circumstances the court pointed out to Mr. Mangalam that perhaps it would be more prudent for the petitioner to accept the severence of relationship with the bank on the basis of resignation rather than take the risk of facing a disciplinary action, which might lead to some punishment. At that stage the case was adjourned on the prayer of Mr, Mangalam to seek instructions from his client. Today Mr. Mangalam stated that he was under instruction to press this writ petition and then this Court proceeded to hear the parties and dispose of this matter. 7. It is well settled that till such time as resignation becomes effective on its acceptance by the competent authority, it is open to the employee to withdraw the resignation and in the absence of any statutory rule to the contrary the employee cannot be denied the right to withdraw his resignation. 8. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the bank, however, submitted that that might be the position in a case where the resignation was made from a future date but in this case the petitioner had declared his intent to resign with immediate effect and therefore, the general law on the issue will not apply in this case. In support of his submission Mr. Sinha relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Union of India and Another V/s. Wing Commander T. Parthsarathy (2001) 1 SCC, 158. In paragraph 6 of the decision a passage is quoted from the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India V/s. Gopal Chandra Mishra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 . In support of his submission Mr. Sinha relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Union of India and Another V/s. Wing Commander T. Parthsarathy (2001) 1 SCC, 158. In paragraph 6 of the decision a passage is quoted from the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India V/s. Gopal Chandra Mishra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 . In the Constitution Bench decision a distinction was made in the case of an employee whose resignation would take effect only on its acceptance by the competent authority and in the case of a constitutional functionary who has the right to resign unilaterally either from a date in future or with immediate effect. In the latter case it was pointed out that if the constitutional functionary declared his intent to resign with immediate effect, there would be no occasion for him to withdraw the resignation as his act of resignation was unilateral and it would take effect immediately as intended and declared by him in writing. However, in case of an employee who could only resign subject to the approval by the competent authority there would be no question of any resignation in praesenti. 9. It is indisputable that the petitioner is an employee whose resignation could take effect only on being accepted by the competent authority, notwithstanding the declaration of his intent to resign with immediate effect. It is, therefore, plain and clear to me that the reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on paragraph 6 of the decision in Wing Commander T. Parthasarthy is misconceived and that decision, in fact holds against him. That being the legal position it has to be held that the petitioner had the right to withdraw his resignation and in exercise of that right he withdrew his resignation on 21.9.2001. The respondent authorities therefore, committed an error in accepting his resignation which was no longer in subsistence. 10. In the light of the above discussion the impugned communication dated 27.10.2001 is set aside. As a consequence, it will be open to the authorities to revive the proceeding which was pending against the petitioner at the time of issuance of the impugned memo, dated 27.10.2001 and to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 11. In the result this writ petition is allowed subject to the above observations and directions but with no order as to costs.