JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner while holding the post of Deputy Manager, Inspection, Technical Services Department, Barauni Refinery submitted a letter of resignation on 25.10.2008 to the Executive Director, Barauni Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Limited through proper channel. That letter contained in Annexure-2 mentions that petitioner wanted to resign due to unavoidable personal reasons. It contained request for release on 5.11.2008 after settling all his dues and for the shortfall in the required notice period of 30 days, that is, for 20 days he prayed for deduction from his accumulated earn leave. Through another letter dated 1.11.08 contained in Annexure-3 the petitioner referred to his discussion with the Executive Director dated 31.10.08 and he informed the Executive Director that he was withdrawing his resignation letter submitted on 25.10.08. As appears from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit the letter of withdrawal of resignation was read by the authorities constituting proper channel on 2.11.2008 as well as on 3.11.2008 at 9.58 AM but on the same date, i.e., 3.11.2008 petitioner was communicated with the decision that his resignation vide application dated 25.10.2008 has been accepted in principle but his release shall be subject to final settlement of dues payable by the petitioner to the Corporation. He was advised to settle the dues by 6.11.2008. The final release order was to be issued on settlement of dues. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by acceptance of his resignation by the authorities of the Corporation. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as would appear from Annexure-2 petitioner had clearly expressed in his resignation letter that he was to continue in service till 5.11.2008 and much before that date his letter withdrawing the offer of resignation had reached to the concerned authorities but still without considering petitioners withdrawal of offer of resignation the authorities have accepted his resignation with effect from 5.11.2008. 4. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this court in the case of Vijay Das vs. State Bank of India, 2003(1) PLJR 44 , another Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Md. 4. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this court in the case of Vijay Das vs. State Bank of India, 2003(1) PLJR 44 , another Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Md. Shahzada vs. The State of Bihar, 2007(2), PLJR, 454 and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandmal Chayal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006(4) PLJR (SC) 358. On the basis of those judgments it has been submitted that unless there be any statutory provision to the contrary, an employee has a right to withdraw his offer of resignation till his jural relationship with the employer continues. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the only crucial date in such matters is the date on which the competent authority decides to accept the offer of resignation and in this case, according to learned counsel for the respondents, such date was 29.10.2008, the date on which the Executive Director saw the letter of resignation and signed on the same as is evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In support of this proposition he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, 2003(3) Supreme 532 . 6. On going through the principle of law settled by the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner it is found that in the case of Vijay Das (supra) this court had the opportunity to examine the basic principle involved in such cases in detail. In that case the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement. The court examined several judgments of the Supreme Court as in the case of Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Mishra, (1978)2 SCC 301 , Balram Gupta vs. Union of India 1987 (Supplementary) SCC 228, J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India, (1998)9 SCC 559 , Power Finance Corporation vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, (1997)4 SCC 280 and Union of India vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarthy, (2001)1 SCC 158 to come to a conclusion that resignation/voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end even when it has already been accepted. The views of the Supreme Court quoted in the judgments show that the Apex Court has consistently held that a complete and effective act of resignation of office is one which severs the link of resigner with his office and terminates his tenure. 7. In the case of Union of India vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarthy the court had observed that right of an employee to withdraw the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, is substantive legal right which cannot be denied to a person on the basis of some policy decision of the Government in absence of any statutory provision or rule to the contrary. 8. So far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Corporation is concerned, that related to a case where the resignation was with immediate effect and on facts the court accepted the case of the employer that the resignation was accepted on the date of the offer itself and the court negatived the contention of the employee that his jural relationship as an employee continued only because he had signed on the attendance register. In paragraph 14 of that judgment the Apex Court has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in which also the emphasis was only on the normal mode of resignation which becomes effective with immediate effect as soon as it is accepted by the appropriate authorities. In that judgment the court was dealing with a case in which the employee had sought resignation from a later date and before that date he withdrew his offer of resignation, as in the present case. 9. As a result of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that petitioner had withdrawn his offer of resignation before his jural relationship as an employee come to an end and in such a situation the respondent authorities committed error of law in giving effect to petitioners offer of resignation which was already withdrawn. Hence, the acceptance of petitioners resignation by the respondent authorities and cessation of his employment on that account are found to be illegal. The impugned order accepting the resignation of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. As a result, the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits.