R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Miss Sharda Maruthi Patil is before me challenging annexure-H, dated 12-1 -2000 with a further direction to permit the petitioner to work as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in addition to monetary benefits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as LDC in the year 1984. She was transferred to Pune on permanent duty basis. Her father, Sri Maruthi Patil was a Sipai in the military service and was a Commandant Officer in the Second world War. He retired from service with injuries to his body and leg amputated and her mother was old lady. In those circumstances, she made a request and her request was accepted and was transferred to Belgaum. She has made some averments/allegations against one Sri R. S. Kahtri, her principal in the school. According to her, Sri Kahtri developed ill-will against her and went on giving her problems after problems. He apprehended her as lunatic person and she was sent for treatment by the Principal. She could not perform her duties for various reasons which she has given in detail in the petition. It is unnecessary for me to refer to all these facts for the purpose of this case. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Principal was insisting upon the petitioner to leave the school and resign the post. The petitioner declined. She was abused in the month of January 2000 and that she was threatened that she would be made to suffer criminal proceedings in case if she does not resign. Thereafter, she was compelled to resign in terms of Annexure-F. Her resignation was accepted in terms of Annexure-G followed by Annexure-H, acceptance by the officiating Principal and later Principal. She later submitted a letter at Annexure-J, dated 21-1-2000 followed by Annexure-K to the respondent. According to her she has withdrawn the resignation before acceptance and therefore, the acceptance of resignation according to her is unsustainable in law. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. They have filed a detailed affidavit. They say in the affidavit that the petitioner was transferred from ammunition Depot, Kirkee, Pune to Belgaum. The school is a residential military school. It has more than 310 students. The petitioner was an undesirable worker. Her attitude and behaviour is marked by indiscipline. The earlier Principal, noticing her dismal performances wanted her to be posted somewhere else. They say in the affidavit that the petitioner was transferred from ammunition Depot, Kirkee, Pune to Belgaum. The school is a residential military school. It has more than 310 students. The petitioner was an undesirable worker. Her attitude and behaviour is marked by indiscipline. The earlier Principal, noticing her dismal performances wanted her to be posted somewhere else. The present Principal noticed some peculiar behaviour and on going through the records he found that the petitioner is to be sent for medical examination. She was examined and diagnosed as suffering from "paranoid Psychosis". He has also referred to her poor performance in the objection statement. She offered her resignation on 7-9-1991. It was not accepted. She again sent her resignation on 16-2-1995. It was conditional. Therefore, it was not acceptable. On 29-10-1999, she wanted to resign. The said resignation was accepted by the respondent. Thereafter, there is sufficient correspondence available on record in this regard. She has also made a subsequent letter to the petitioner. She wanted to meet the Committee and the same has been turned down by the respondent. She also sought for permission of personal hearing in the chamber and the same has been considered not essential in the letter dated 3-2-2000. ( 5 ) A reply statement has been filed by the petitioner and an additional statement is also filed by the respondent. ( 6 ) THIS Court in terms of an order dated 21-2-2003 directed the petitioner to file original of Annexure-K2, an acknowledgement. Respondents have stated in the petition that they have not received Annexure-J, a withdrawal letter and this order was passed in those circumstances to verify the correctness of the statement. Thereafter, the matter was heard finally by this court. ( 7 ) SRI Goulay, learned Counsel essentially raised two contentions. His first contention is that the acceptance of resignation by the Principal is contrary to the powers vested with the Principal in the case on hand. According to him in terms of Annexure-A, appointment is effected by the Colonel and he has not accepted the resignation. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in krishna Kumar v Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway and Others. According to him in terms of Annexure-A, appointment is effected by the Colonel and he has not accepted the resignation. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in krishna Kumar v Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway and Others. Insofar as resignation is concerned, learned Counsel says that resignation must be spontaneous and the given set of facts would show that it is out of depression and on account of difficulties being faced in the hospital. He also says that the history of the case would show that resignation is not voluntary. His further submission is that even otherwise she withdrew her resignation in terms of Annexure-J. ( 8 ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the Union Government invites my attention to the material facts to contend that the petitioner used to retire every now and then and finally this time, she has given a letter of resignation and the same has been accepted. Insofar as the powers of the Principal is concerned, she refers to the documents to contend that the Principal has necessary powers to accept the resignation. With regard to withdrawal, learned Counsel says that no withdrawal letter has been received by them. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. Reg. Powers of Principal: ( 10 ) FROM the material on record it is seen that the petitioner was appointed by Colonel, officer-in-charge (records), Annexure-A. Insofar as the acceptance of resignation is concerned, the same has been done by the principal, in terms of Annexures-G and H. The respondent has placed the materials to show that the delegation of power in terms of Annexure-6 series is available. Insofar as schools and colleges are concerned, respective principals are shown as the Appointing Authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Principals lack power in the matter of acceptance of resignation. Moreover, in the correspondence between the parties, no such plea as such has been raised by the petitioner. At any rate the given set of facts do not establish any want of power with the Principal. Moreover, she was initially appointed by the office of the in charge of records and subsequently she was sent to the school. It was in those circumstances, Annexure-A has been issued by the officer-in-charge. The first contention is therefore not acceptable to me. Moreover, she was initially appointed by the office of the in charge of records and subsequently she was sent to the school. It was in those circumstances, Annexure-A has been issued by the officer-in-charge. The first contention is therefore not acceptable to me. Insofar as Krishna Kumar's case, supra is concerned, it is seen that in the said case the appellant was removed by an order passed by an authority who at any rate was subordinate in rank to the Chief Electrical Engineer. That was not a case of any delegation of power as in the present case. Reg. Resignation: ( 11 ) THE crucial question is as to whether the petitioner submitted her resignation or not in the given set of circumstances. The petitioner has not filed her letter of resignation. The respondents, on the other hand have filed a letter of resignation dated 29-10-1999. Since lot of argument was advanced by the parties, it is necessary to quote the resignation itself for appropriate understanding of the case. Resignation from service"sir, with due respect this is to bring your kind notice that I am in very much trouble due to unavoidable circumstances due to so many problems which are not being solved even after my so many efforts. I also requested Principal, Administrative Officer and also went to maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre and requested them to help me from this difficulties, but everything is in vain. So at the end I have come to final decision to resign from service because I am helpless. I have put all my efforts to come out from all this difficulties but there is no end to these difficulties of mine and no peace of mind. My earnest request is to you Sir that forward my application to Army headquarter for further correspondence and whatever pension if I am to get please see that whatever percentage of pension for 16 years of service please look into the matter so that it will be benefitted for my further life. I request you Sir, to help me to come out from this difficulties any mine otherwise there is no other way. Please do the needful and sort out this problem of mine". ( 12 ) A reading of the said letter would show that the petitioner has stated in para 2 that she has come to a final decision to resign from service. Please do the needful and sort out this problem of mine". ( 12 ) A reading of the said letter would show that the petitioner has stated in para 2 that she has come to a final decision to resign from service. Para 4 would show a request for forwarding application for further correspondence and whatever pension. A reading of the letter dated 29-10-1999 would show that the petitioner did submit a resignation to the authorities. In fact, it is nowhere stated in the petition that she never submitted any resignation in terms of a letter dated 29-10-1999. But what is contended is that the said resignation is not spontaneous and is not voluntary. In the light of the said submission, I have carefully perused the material on record. It is seen that the petitioner seems to be suffering with some mental ailment and in fact she was subjected to medical examination. In fact, the respondents have filed the material on record to show that on one occasion, they have to approach the magistrate in the year 2000 and the Magistrate has noticed the letter by the district Hospital in his order at Annexure-9 series. He has stated that Miss sharda Maruti Patil (the petitioner) is a lunatic patient and she is to be given to the custody of her elder brother to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner also has referred to her ailment in the petition. It is also on record that she has resigned once in 1991 and again in the year 1995. She seems to have some depression and some difference with the Principal. Though the said difference is not fully substantiated. But a reading of all these materials together would show that the resignation cannot said to be in the normal circumstances and out of spontaneous from the petitioner. Therefore, this court has to notice that it is not a true resignation in terms of law. Even a reading of the letter dated 29-10-1999, Annexure-4 series (the letter of resignation) would show that she seems to have some problem and she is unable to face those problems. It was out of frustration or depression that she has chosen to give this letter. This finding is irresistible in the light of the mental condition and in the light of the record available in this case. It was out of frustration or depression that she has chosen to give this letter. This finding is irresistible in the light of the mental condition and in the light of the record available in this case. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in the recent judgment has considered the case of resignation in the judgment in 2002 AIR SCW 5162. The Supreme Court has noticed its earlier judgment in Moti Ram v Param Dev and Another. After noticing, the Supreme Court has ruled that resignation is to be unconditional and with an intention to operate as such resignation is an intention to give up or relinquish her office accompanied by any act of relinquishment. The supreme Court in the said case set aside the resignation on the ground that the said letter of resignation is not with an intention to operate as such. The present facts of the case is also same/similar as in the case of reported judgment. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that resignation is not voluntary and is not an act with a view to relinquish her office. This finding is also supported by subsequent events in which she narrated her difficulties and sought for an appointment with the Board. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that the resignation is not voluntary and is not spontaneous one as understood in law. ( 14 ) HAVING come to this conclusion, let me see as to whether she has withdrawn her resignation. In fact, this question itself is unnecessary. But however, learned Counsel has made a submission and therefore, I think that I should give my findings on this issue as well. The petitioner asserts that she has withdrawn her letter in terms of Annexure-J. The same is dated 21-1 -2000. It was supposed to have been sent by registered post. Respondents have categorically stated in their objection statement that they have not received the same. In fact, I have myself seen the original file and the said letter is not available. I do not want to doubt the records of public office like a school run by the Central Government. There is no reason for the respondent to make a submission of non-receipt of Annexure-J. Even in the subsequent letter at Annexure-K she (the petitioner) does not refer to the earlier letter dated 21-1-2000. I do not want to doubt the records of public office like a school run by the Central Government. There is no reason for the respondent to make a submission of non-receipt of Annexure-J. Even in the subsequent letter at Annexure-K she (the petitioner) does not refer to the earlier letter dated 21-1-2000. Material on record does not satisfactorily prove to my ( 15 ) WRIT petition stands disposed of in the above manner. Parties are to bear their costs. --- *** --- .