JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. Respondent Avdesh Kr Singh was at the relevant time was Inspector, Customs and Central Excise. On 16.2.1996 he has submitted a letter resigning from service contending therein that urged by the social cause for the upliftment of the people of this area in general and down trodden society in particular and on pressure from mass people, I feel it my duty to stand by their side at this stage of my life. In view of the above, I have decided to resign from service with immediate effect to serve the cause of the people, which I am unable if I am in Government service. I earnestly request you to kindly accept my resignation forthwith. The authority vide order dated 29.3.1996 accepted the resignation of the respondent. Later on, admittedly, the respondent stood in the general election and has lost the election. On 16.5.96 the respondent moved an application and made a prayer under Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 for allowing him to withdraw his resignation letter and resume service. Vide order dated 21.6.96 the prayer of the respondent was allowed directing him to join at Karimganj with a rider that order is subject to the approval of Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. This order specifically mentioned that if the terms and conditions mentioned in the order is acceptable then alone he may join as Inspector in Karimganj Range under Silchar Central Excise Division. Thus, withdrawal of his resignation was accepted on the condition that it requires the approval of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. In pursuance thereof the respondent has joined the service on 24.6.96. However, the Central Board of Excise & Customs did not agree with the acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation of the respondent and directed the Appointing Authority to pass order withdrawing the letter dated 21.6.1996 and accordingly on 20.12.1996 the order was withdrawn. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the authority, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by filing OA No. 293/96 and the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 29.1.99 disposed of the said application. According to the Tribunal the decision was taken by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which is not the authority under the Rule to take a decision. According to the Tribunal the decision was taken by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which is not the authority under the Rule to take a decision. The decision is to be taken by the Appointing Authority taking into consideration all the factors, and therefore, gave direction to the Appointing Authority to decide the question of withdrawal of the resignation on his own by a reasoned order. 2. In accordance with the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Appointing Authority took up the matter of the withdrawal of the resignation of the Respondent and passed order dated 6th May 1999. The order reads that in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 it has been provided that the Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest if, among other conditions, the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons. In its view, the resignation from service for contesting general election does not constitute a compelling reason as provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Rules. The decision to contest the general election has been taken voluntarily and consciously by the applicant. It is an option, which he chose to exercise. Therefore, the Authority is of the view that the applicant does not fulfil the condition of sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Rules, and the application for withdrawal submitted by the applicant is not permissible. The net result of the order passed by the appointing authority was that the withdrawal application of the respondent has not been accepted by the Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 153/99. The Tribunal has taken a view that the respondents application for withdrawal of the resignation has already been accepted by order dated 21.6.96, therefore, permission to withdraw the resignation may be reviewed on cogent reasons only. The Tribunal has held, that the Authorities has to decide whether reasons cited by the Respondent for tendering his resignation was made under some driving force or influence, was the key question that was required to be objectively decided by the authority while exercising the power under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Rules. The Tribunal was of the view that the exercise of power under sub-rule (4) of the Rule 26 has not been properly made. The Tribunal was of the view that the exercise of power under sub-rule (4) of the Rule 26 has not been properly made. With that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed to reconsider the application for withdrawal filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the Appointing Authority on 6.5.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union of India has preferred the present petition. 3. To appreciate the judgment of the Tribunal of remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Appointing Authority, it is necessary for us to look into the relevant Rule, viz. Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which reads thus: 26(4) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:- (i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material chance in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation; (ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper; (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than 90 days; (iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available. On a plain reading of sub-rule (4) of Rule 26, it is apparent that it is the discretion of the Appointing Authority to permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the conditions that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons, which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances, which originally compelled him to tender the resignation. Thus, it is abundantly clear that for application of Rule 26(4) of the Rules it is necessary that (i) the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons; (ii) the compelling reason does not have any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct; (iii) after the resignation being accepted there was a material change in the circumstances, which originally compelled him to tender the resignation. The sine qua non for application of this rule is compelling reason, for which the Government servant has tendered his resignation. The respondent has submitted his resignation without there being any compelling reason and it was on his own sweet will, he resigned from his post. It may also be seen that under the Rule, discretion has been given to the Authority concerned to accept withdrawal of the resignation if it is found to be in the public interest. If the Authority does not find any public interest involved in accepting the withdrawal of the resignation the Rule has no application. The only requirement to find out the public interest is application of mind by the authority to the facts and circumstances of each case. The question may also arise whether the reason for which the resignation has been tendered by the Government servant has any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct. The Authority has also to consider whether there is any change in the material circumstances, which necessarily means, the change in the circumstances, which compels the authority to exercise its the powers, in the public interest, to accept the withdrawal of resignation. 4. In the present case, the application submitted by the respondent reveals that the resignation was tendered by the respondent with a view to do public service. He has contested the election but has lost. The manner by which the public service is to be done has been chosen by the respondent and for that he has resigned from Government service. The service in the Government Department is, in our view, is also a public service. He has contested the election but has lost. The manner by which the public service is to be done has been chosen by the respondent and for that he has resigned from Government service. The service in the Government Department is, in our view, is also a public service. Mode of carrying out the public service may differ and when the respondent on his own volition has decided to do a public service in a particular manner, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the resignation was caused on account of the fact that there was a compelling reason to do the public service in a particular manner. It is apparently the choice of the petitioner to do a public service by resigning from Government service. It is the choice of a person to do service in a particular manner for the humanity and the public in general. Choice of the manner to do a public service, selected by a person, cannot be said to be a compelling reason. Thus, we are of the view that the resignation itself of the respondent was not for a compelling reason and this fact completely excludes the application of Rule 26(4) of the Rules. Even if it is said, the resignation was on account of the fact that there was a compelling reason for the respondent to tender his resignation from the Government Department to do the public service, then also after his resignation there is no material change in the circumstances, which originally compelled him to tender his resignation. The resignation was for rendering pubic service in a particular manner and the manner in which he wants to do the public service still continues. He can do the public service without remaining in the Government service, as has been decided by him at the time of tendering his resignation. Thus, it cannot be said that there is material change in the circumstances, which originally compelled him to tender his resignation. In our view, the Central Administrative Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in application of Rule 26 (4) of the Rules. The reason given by the Appointing Authority for not accepting the withdrawal application is in accordance with law and the decision taken by the Appointing Authority, refusing to accept the withdrawal application does not require any interference. 5. Petition is allowed. The reason given by the Appointing Authority for not accepting the withdrawal application is in accordance with law and the decision taken by the Appointing Authority, refusing to accept the withdrawal application does not require any interference. 5. Petition is allowed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside.