Judgment ( 1. ) SHORT facts relevant for the purpose of petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the services of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Mydt. , Bhopal NCDC III Co-op. Storage Project, M. P. , Bhopal vide Annexure P-1, dated 21-10-1989on daily wages. He was absorbed in the services on the post of Clerk vide Annexure P-2, dated 28-6-1991. A charge-sheet was issued to him dated 14-12-1991 as contained in Annexure P-5. His services were transferred to Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Damoh vide Annexure P-10, dated 30th September, 1992. The petitioner vide letter dated 4-1-1994 contained in Annexure P-14 informed the Superintendent of Police, Damoh that he was being harassed and even compelled to leave the job. It is the case of the petitioner that he sent a resignation letter as dictated by the respondent No. 3. The resignation sent under compelling circumstances was accepted as informed to him vide his letter dated 17-1-1994 as contained in Annexure P-15. It was informed vide this letter that according to Service Rule No. 62 (3), the salary of one month ought to have been deposited. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit the sum. The petitioner vide letter dated 19-1-1994 (Annexure P-16) requested the Chairman of the respondent Bank to cancel the resignation on the ground that the same was submitted under mental stress resulting from the ill health of his mother and family circumstances. The petitioner by telegram informed this to the authorities of the Co-operative Societies, Sagar Division. In pursuance of this, the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sagar Division vide letter dated 1-8-1994 asked the Assistant Registrar to make an enquiry and submit the report within seven days. However, the Bank did not allow the petitioner to work on account of acceptance of his resignation. Aggrieved by the same the present petition has been submitted for quashing the acceptance of resignation vide Annexure P-15 and further directing the respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to join in the services on his post. Back wages have also been claimed. ( 2. ) THE respondent No. 1 submitted its return. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also submitted their joint return denying thereby the claim of the petitioner. Back wages have also been claimed. ( 2. ) THE respondent No. 1 submitted its return. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also submitted their joint return denying thereby the claim of the petitioner. They stated that the petitioner could have availed an alternative remedy as provided under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as societies Act ). The respondents admitted to have issued show-cause notice. According to the answering respondents the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly. The details of absence are furnished in Paragraph 3 of the return. It is further stated in the return that the petitioner on 11-1-1994 tendered his resignation in the office voluntarily to the Branch Manager of Hata Branch of respondent Bank. On 13-1-1994 the resignation letter of petitioner was produced before the Chairman of the respondent Bank who accepted it on the same date in anticipation of approval of Staff Sub Committee who approved the acceptance of resignation. It has been submitted that Manager of Jila Sahakari Kendriya Maryadit Bank, Damoh is the Chief Executive Officer as there was neither the post of Managing Director nor General Manager. Chief Executive Officer being the Appointing Authority of the post of Clerk, was competent to accept the resignation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted in accordance with law and the application of the petitioner dated 19-1-1994 was rejected after consideration. The petitioner after submitting the resignation in a voluntary manner and further after acceptance of the same, could not have been permitted to work in the Bank. Accordingly the answering respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. ( 3. ) SHRI Rohit Arya, Sr. Counsel urged that resignation from the services of respondent/bank could have been given on/or after one months notice on deposit of one months pay. He submitted that no such advance notice was given by the petitioner and the pay of one month also not deposited by him. According to learned Senior Counsel the resignation could not have been legally accepted before one month in the absence of deposit of one months salary. In the light of this factual background, learned Senior Counsel submitted that withdrawal of the resignation on 19-1-1994 was quite permissible and the Bank ought to have allowed the petitioner to work on his post after cancellation of the letter of resignation. In the light of this factual background, learned Senior Counsel submitted that withdrawal of the resignation on 19-1-1994 was quite permissible and the Bank ought to have allowed the petitioner to work on his post after cancellation of the letter of resignation. He draw attention of this Court to Rule 62 of the Service Rules of the Employees of the District Co-operative Central Bank and stated that resignation in contravention of this rule could not have been legally accepted. ( 4. ) CONSIDERED the submissions and perused the record. ( 5. ) PRELIMINARY objection of the respondents is that in view of Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to submit a dispute before the Registrar or any officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar. This provision is reproduced below: 55. Registrars power to determine conditions of employment in societies. (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf. (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees: Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned : Provided further than in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded. ( 6. ) IT may be seen that the petitioner has made various averments with an emphasis on the fact that the petitioner in order to save him from the victimisation and harassment at the hands of respondent No. 3, was left with no option that to submit a resignation under the compelling circumstances. The petitioner was being threatened of being sent to jail by respondent No. 3. The petitioner was being threatened of being sent to jail by respondent No. 3. Resignation is stated to have been dictated by respondent No. 3 and the petitioner under the fear and coercion submitted it which was accepted on the same date. All such allegations have been denied by the respondents on affidavit. Thus, the fact that the petitioner submitted the resignation out of his free will or not is a disputed question of the fact which could have been gone by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, while deciding the dispute. It would have been better for the petitioner to approach the Registrar, under Section 55 of the Societies Act. In view of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramswarup Gupta v. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. reported as AIR1976 MP 156 , availability of remedy under Section 55 does not prohibit the petitioner from invoking the writ jurisdiction, provided he succeeds in establishing that legal right created in his favour by virtue of provisions of law has been infringed. I may successfully refer to the following paragraph reproduced from the aforesaid decision: Thus, when according to the rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Act or directions issued by the Registrar in exercise of powers thereunder, there are provisions governing the terms of employment of any servant of the society and they prohibit the society from dismissing its employees without complying the requirements as stated in the rules and if the society terminates the services of its employee without complying the same, the employee concerned can always approach the High Court for enforcing the legal right, which has been created in his favour due to the corresponding legal obligation and duty imposed on the society to act in a particular manner. Such an employee will approach the Court not for enforcement of contract of service but for the enforcement of the legal right created in his favour by virtue of the provisions that he could not be dealt otherwise in the matter of his employment in violation of the provisions of the rules. Such an employee will approach the Court not for enforcement of contract of service but for the enforcement of the legal right created in his favour by virtue of the provisions that he could not be dealt otherwise in the matter of his employment in violation of the provisions of the rules. However, if there is no such rule or statutory provisions regarding the terms of employment of a particular employee, the same will be definitely governed by the general law of master and servant and since it will not be a case of breach of any statuary provision or failure to perform legal obligation or legal duty imposed by law, such an employee cannot approach the High Court for claiming a writ for reinstatement or directions to the Society to deal with him in any particular manner. ( 7. ) AS regards contravention of law Mr. Rohit Arya, learned Senior counsel referred to Rule 62 of the madhya Pradesh Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa Niyam. Rule 62 provides for termination of services, resignation from services and retrenchment. Sub-rule (3) of this Rule lays down that an employee of the Bank, whether permanent or probationer, may resign from his post by giving notice to the Bank in writing. The period of notice shall be three months, in case of permanent employee and one month in case of a probationer. However, an employee in lieu of the period of notice may deposit his salary for the requisite period. It is further provided that the Bank shall have a right to deduct such an amount from the dues payable to the employee by the bank. ( 8. ) IN the present case, the petitioner has submitted his resignation on 11-1-1994 contained in Annexure R-II-5, which was made effective from the same date. It has been admitted in Paragraph 5 of the petition that the resignation was accepted by respondent No. 3 immediately. It has been contended by the petitioner that the resignation was accepted without obtaining acceptance from respondent No. 1 and Registrar. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any legal provision requiring the acceptance from respondent No. 1 or the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, M. P. , Bhopal. It has been contended by the petitioner that the resignation was accepted without obtaining acceptance from respondent No. 1 and Registrar. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any legal provision requiring the acceptance from respondent No. 1 or the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, M. P. , Bhopal. On the contrary, it has been mentioned in the return on oath that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No. 3, Chief Executive Officer, who was the Appointing Authority of the post of clerk and was competent to accept the resignation of the petitioner. Since the resignation was made effective from the same date, the petitioner had no right to withdraw the resignation after the same was accepted. I may successfully rely on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Anandilal Ganesh Podar Society and Anr. v. Mrs. V. Chakravarti and Anr. reported as 2005 (105) FLR 141, it has been held: The requirement of a notice is prescribed by Rule 40, which stipulates the giving of three calendar months notice by a permanent employee and one months notice by a non-permanent employee. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 40 however, provides that the management may allow an employee to leave service earlier on the payment of pay in lieu of notice or, a part of the period of the notice, as the case may be. Moreover, sub-rule (2) lays down the consequence where the management does not insist upon the payment of pay in lieu of notice. The consequence is a proportionate amount representing pay in lieu of the notice shall be deducted from the grant that is due to the school concerned. It has been further held that the resignation having been accepted on 13th June, 1989, the withdrawal purportedly on 25th August, 1989 is of no legal effect. Likewise, in the present case, the employer Bank shall be at liberty to recover the requisite amount of the period of notice and the petitioner cannot be given any benefit on account of absence of tender of the amount of salary in lieu of the notice period. ( 9. Likewise, in the present case, the employer Bank shall be at liberty to recover the requisite amount of the period of notice and the petitioner cannot be given any benefit on account of absence of tender of the amount of salary in lieu of the notice period. ( 9. ) SINCE the resignation is held to have been accepted by a person having competence, communication of such acceptance was no more necessary and the effect of resignation cannot be wiped out simply because the acceptance was not communicated to the petitioner before 19-1-1994, when an application for withdrawal of resignation was moved by the petitioner. I may safely rely for this purpose on the decision on the Honble Supreme Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and Anr. v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported as 2003-11 LLJ 829, wherein it has been held that non-communication of acceptance does not bring any ineffectiveness provided in fact there is an acceptance. before the withdrawal. ( 10. ) ON behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Shambu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd. and Anr. reported as AIR2002 SC 1341 , 2002 (2 ) AWC1177 (SC ), 2002 (1 )BLJR787 , [2002 (94 )FLR229 ], [2002 (2 )JCR93 (SC )], JT2002 (3 )SC 37 , 2002 Lablc1093 , (2002 )II LLJ430 SC , 2002 (2 ) SCALE587 , (2002 )3 SCC437 , [2002 ]2 SCR396 , 2002 (2 )SCT400 (SC ), 2002 (1 )UJ656 (SC ), (2002 )2 UPLBEC1174. In that case, the resignation of an employee was accepted by the management on 30-7-1997 with a condition that the release memo alongwith detailed particulars will follow. On 7-8-1997 the appellant sent a letter withdrawing his option from Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) but no response was received by him from the respondents. Ultimately, the respondents issued a memorandum on 25-9-1997 relieving him from service w. e. f. 26-9-1997. In view of this, the Honble Supreme Court found that the employee was allowed to continue in service till 26-9-1997 and he had right to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance before 26-9-1997. In the present case the petitioner himself has admitted that his resignation was immediately accepted and he was not allowed; to join thereafter. ( 11. In view of this, the Honble Supreme Court found that the employee was allowed to continue in service till 26-9-1997 and he had right to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance before 26-9-1997. In the present case the petitioner himself has admitted that his resignation was immediately accepted and he was not allowed; to join thereafter. ( 11. ) FURTHER reliance has placed in the case of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia reported as 1997 (2 )ALT27 (SC ), JT1997 (4 ) SC 300 , (1997 )II LLJ819 SC , 1997 (3 )SCALE347 , (1997 )4 SCC280 , [1997 ]2 SCR1170. In this case, the Honble Supreme Court held that jural relationship of employee and employer continues till the employee is relieved of the duty after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation. Thus, it has been held that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of VRS or resignation, the jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. It has been further held that before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. In the present case, the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner was not conditional and no compliance was required to be made on the part of the employer. Thus, this authority is also of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 12. ) IN the present case, it is clear that the petitioner had submitted a resignation on 11-1-1994 contained in Annexure R-II-5 and prayed for relieving him on the same date. The same was accepted immediately, as admitted in the writ petition itself. It has not been proved to have been accepted by an officer having no competence. Thus, the petitioner has no locus paenitentiae to withdraw his offer of resignation, after it was accepted, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India reported as AIR 1969 SC 180 . In the result, the petition is dismissed, however without order as to costs.