JUDGMENT This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the petitioner against order dated 28.2.1997 in W.P. No. 876 of 1996 by which his writ petition has been dismissed by the Single Bench. It is not in dispute that appellant Jayant Kumar was working as Assistant Geologist in M.P. State Min1ng Corporation Limited. He submitted his resignation letter dated 8.6.1992 (Annexure P-1) stating therein "with effect from 14.6.1992". He also made a request to adjust one month notice against the earned leave to his credit. He expressed his desire to be relieved with immediate effect. By letter dated 9.6.1992 the respondent asked the petitioner to handover the charge of his post. The petitioner handed over the charge on 11.6.1992 as per Annexure P-2 stating therein ''I am going on leave on 15.6.1992". He was treated on earned leave from 15.6.1992 to 14.7.1992. He remained absent thereafter. By letter dated 17.4.1993 (Annexure P-3) he was placed under suspension on the ground that he was absent from 15.7.1992. In this letter it was mentioned by the respondent that the resignation of the appellant had not been accepted till then. It was stated in the letter dated 17.4.1993 that the departmental enquiry against him was under contemplation. But no departmental enquiry was actually held. The appellant was informed by letter dated 8.9.1994 (Annexure P-5) that his resignation dated 8.6.1992 has been accepted on 30.7.1994. The appellant submitted letter dated 7.9.1994 (Annexure P-4) stating therein that he is withdrawing his resignation. The petitioner's case is that he had withdrawn his resignation before the communication of the acceptance of resignation to him. According to the petitioner his resignation was in fact not accepted on 30.7.1994. He has claimed the relief that he should be treated as in the employment of the Corporation. The respondent's case is that the resignation was in fact accepted by letter dated 30.7.1994 with effect from 15.7.1992. This acceptance was communicated to the appellant. He was again informed by letter dated 8.9.1994 in reply to his letter dated 7.9.1994 that his resignation has already been accepted by letter dated 30.7.1994 with effect from 15.7.1992. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the resignation of the petitioner was in fact accepted on 30.7.1994. That is borne out from the despatch register Annexure R-3. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the resignation of the petitioner was in fact accepted on 30.7.1994. That is borne out from the despatch register Annexure R-3. Therefore, the resignation could not be withdrawn by the petitioner by his letter dated 7.9.1994. In this appeal it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that his resignation was not alive on 30.7.1994 when it is said to have been accepted. According to the appellant there was implied withdrawal of the resignation and it had lapsed because the respondent did not accept it within a reasonable time and on the contrary placed him under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appellant remained absent for more than two years after submission of his resignation and his offer to resign was in force when it was accepted on 30.7.1994. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we are of the opinion that there was no expressed or implied withdrawal of the resignation of the appellant before 30.7.1994 when it was accepted. The appellant was directed to hand over the charge because he had also applied for leave for one month and it was granted. The petitioner has stated in para 5.4 of the petition that he was treated on earned leave from 15.6.1992 to 14.7.1992. The letter dated 17.4.1993 (Annexure P-3) of the respondent by which the petitioner was placed under suspension shows that his resignation had not been accepted till then. Even at that stage the petitioner did not choose to withdraw his resignation. He sent the letter dated 7.9.1994 expressing for the first time that he was withdrawing the resignation. As his resignation has already been accepted on 30.7.1994 the petitioner had no locus poenitentiae to withdraw his resignation after 30.7.1994. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. S. Partha and others, 1996 (I) LLJ 1019. In that case it was found as a fact that the resignation had been withdrawn prior to ifs acceptance, and, therefore, the withdrawal was held to be valid. In the present case the resignation has been accepted before its withdrawal and, therefore, this decision does not apply to the present case. In that case it was found as a fact that the resignation had been withdrawn prior to ifs acceptance, and, therefore, the withdrawal was held to be valid. In the present case the resignation has been accepted before its withdrawal and, therefore, this decision does not apply to the present case. In North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 2719 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the resignation takes effect the moment it is accepted and not from the date of communication of the acceptance. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Brij Mohan Parihar (2000) 9 SCC 269 . In that case the respondent tendered his resignation on 10.10.1983 in which it was mentioned that it would be effective from 25.11.1983. He absented himself from duty for four years from that date and reported himself on duty on 22.8.1987. The employer by letter dated 24.8.1987 accepted the letter of resignation with effect from 25.1 1.1983. The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the employee is sufficient to indicate that he treated himself to have resigned from the post which he was holding with effect from 25.11.1983. In the present case, as already stated, the resignation of the appellant was accepted before its withdrawal. The argument of the appellant that his letter of resignation had lapsed or it stood impliedly withdrawn is not acceptable. The offer of resignation made by the appellant was alive till it was accepted. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. The appeal is dismissed.