JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the respondents stating that he has tendered his resignation on 19-2-2008, which was immediately withdrawn by him but by the impugned order dated 1-4-2008, the same has been accepted, therefore, the right of the petitioner to remain in the employment after withdrawal of his resignation has been jeopardised and as such the order impugned is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent No. 2 and was discharging his duties diligently. However, because of the bias and prejudice in the mind of the then Director of respondent No. 2, certain actions were initiated against him. His wife was expecting a child and during the time when she was hospitalized with a complaint of major complication, the petitioner was required to visit his wife. He requested for grant of leave but that was refused with an ulterior motive and on account of sheer frustration, the petitioner tendered his resignation immediately. When he visited his wife, he was advised not to behave like this and ultimately he immediately made an application on 19-2-2008 itself seeking permission to withdraw the resignation made on the very same date. Such a document was sent by certificate of posting, which was duly received in the office of the respondent No. 2. Yet, instead of permitting withdrawal of the resignation, the same was accepted w.e.f. 29-2-2008 by the impugned order dated 1-4-2008. It is contended that this being so, the mala fides of the respondents are writ large and as such the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. Refuting such allegations made by the petitioner, a detailed return has been filed. It has been stated by the respondents in their return that the fact relating to making of resignation was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and he was very much aware of the fact that if the resignation is accepted, he will be out of the employment. Despite this, when the dues were offered to him, he accepted the same without any demur. It is contended in the return in detail that the petitioner was called upon to handover the charge of his post, which he handed over to another person serving in the institution on 4-4-2008. Despite this, when the dues were offered to him, he accepted the same without any demur. It is contended in the return in detail that the petitioner was called upon to handover the charge of his post, which he handed over to another person serving in the institution on 4-4-2008. This itself is indicative of the fact that petitioner had never withdrawn the resignation. In fact the documents were concocted by the petitioner to show as if the resignation was withdrawn. The entries made in the official documents were all manipulated because the petitioner was having such documents in his custody or within his approach. There was no occasion to withdraw the resignation and only after its acceptance, the story is concocted by the petitioner that the resignation was in fact withdrawn. Had it been the case that the resignation is withdrawn with immediate affect, the petitioner would have given the joining in the month of February, 2008 itself. He had not appeared for work even in the months of February and March, 2008 and ultimately handed over the charge of the post after communication of letter of acceptance of resignation on 4-4-2008, therefore, it is clear that the document of withdrawal of resignation was never communicated to the respondents. If there was no communication of any application of withdrawal of resignation and if the resignation is accepted from the date, it was meant for, nothing wrong was committed by the respondents. It was further contended that there were in fact serious lapses on the part of the petitioner for which a departmental enquiry action was initiated. The petitioner was fully aware of the fact that ultimately he is going to be punished and this being so, he left the job voluntarily, which was duly accepted by the respondents in accordance to law and, therefore, nothing wrong is committed by the respondents. It is contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves dismissal. 3. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner with which other documents have been filed. The petitioner has further placed on record one of the letters indicating as if the same was received by the then Director of the respondent-Institute on 27-2-2008. It is contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves dismissal. 3. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner with which other documents have been filed. The petitioner has further placed on record one of the letters indicating as if the same was received by the then Director of the respondent-Institute on 27-2-2008. It is tried to put forth by the petitioner that when the request itself was brought to the notice of the respondents for not to accept the resignation of the petitioner, there was no question of putting the resignation before the Board of Directors of the respondent-Institution for taking final decision. By filing additional return it is reiterated by the respondents that the matter was required to be placed before the Board of Directors, the meeting of Board of Directors was convened and before even any communication whatsoever as alleged regarding withdrawal of the resignation, the Board of Directors had already taken a decision to accept the resignation of the petitioner. In so many words it has been pointed out that in fact there was no communication of any such request of petitioner to withdraw the aforesaid resignation, thus, the order was rightly issued accepting the resignation of the petitioner, which fact was not objected by the petitioner at any point of time before handing over the charge. Therefore, now the claim made by the petitioner is totally misconceived and as such he is not entitled to any relief. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and minutely examined the records. 5. First of all it is to be examined whether there was any unconditional tendering of resignation by the petitioner or not. Letter of resignation itself has been placed on record as Annexure P-14, which reads thus : Date : 29-2-2008 To, The Director, PDPMIIITDM, Jabalpur, Sub :- Resignation from the post of Dy. Registrar and one month notice. Sir, Due to unavoidable circumstances I do not wish to continue, therefore, I am hereby submitting my resignation from the post of Dy. Registrar in this Institute w.e.f. 29th February'08 along with one month notice for the same. Therefore, it is requested that please accept my resignation and relieve me from the duties on 31-3-2008. Registrar and one month notice. Sir, Due to unavoidable circumstances I do not wish to continue, therefore, I am hereby submitting my resignation from the post of Dy. Registrar in this Institute w.e.f. 29th February'08 along with one month notice for the same. Therefore, it is requested that please accept my resignation and relieve me from the duties on 31-3-2008. Sd/- (Satyendu Mohan) Deputy Registrar PDPMIIITDM, Jabalpur" The endorsement made on such a letter indicates that the letter was signed and delivered to the competent authority on 19-2-2008. The request was made for relieving of the petitioner w.e.f. 31-3-2008. As against this, a letter of withdrawal of resignation said to be made on 19-2-2008 is placed on record as Annexure P-15. On the top of the letter it is said that it is being sent by Registered/UPC post. Only the receipt of sending such a letter by UPC has been placed on record but nothing has been indicated whether the said Setter was sent by registered post also or not. The record produced by the petitioner indicates that letter was said to be received on 22-2-2008. However, as has been demonstrated by the respondents, the said document was nothing but a visitor book of the Institute and not that of the inward receipt register of the Institute. The said document was said to be signed by some officer of the security services. Whether such persons were part of the regular employment of the Institution or not is not clear. It is put forth by the petitioner that these facts were duly intimated, the application was made for accepting such a letter of withdrawal of the resignation but the same was not accepted by the authorities only because of bias. 6. As against this, it is vehemently contended by the respondents that the letter said to be sent for withdrawal of the resignation was never received in the office of the respondent No. 2. Nothing was indicated as to how such a document was received by a regular employee of the Institution. In sub-para (g) of Para 22 of the reply it is very categorically contended by the respondents that the said U.P.C. letter was never received by them in their office. It is contended that after 5 PM the postal delivery is not done by the postal employees. In sub-para (g) of Para 22 of the reply it is very categorically contended by the respondents that the said U.P.C. letter was never received by them in their office. It is contended that after 5 PM the postal delivery is not done by the postal employees. A document has been annexed with the return to indicate that one Eagle Security Service was given contract to provide security and the employees assigned the duty by the said agency, were suppose to keep on record only the description of persons who were visiting the Institution, the security of the Institution and keeping record of the material which is to be brought or taken out from the Institution. If such entry was made in a book kept for the said purposes, it has to be held that the letter was not delivered to the competent authority by the petitioner. The other document, which the petitioner has heavily put reliance, is a letter written by him addressed to Professor Sanjeev Bhargav, Director, and it is said that same was received by him on 27-2-2008. It is reiterated by the petitioner in the said letter that he was willing to withdraw his resignation from the post of Deputy Registrar finally. To this document it is specifically contended by the respondents in their return that such a document is also concocted one as the said document is not found in the record. It is contended that said Professor Bhargav was impleaded as a party in the writ petition but on account of his untimely death, his name was deleted. There is no proof of the fact that such a document was ever produced before the said authority and that being so, it is contended that such stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is further stated by the respondents that had it been a case that such an application was submitted by the petitioner within time, the petitioner would have made the submission in this regard in his main petition and would not have brought on record such a vitally important document along with the rejoinder. It is further contended that initially the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the very same claim but the said petition was withdrawn as the Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to entertain such a service matter. It is further contended that initially the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the very same claim but the said petition was withdrawn as the Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to entertain such a service matter. At that time also such a vitally important document was not brought on record and, therefore, the same cannot be relied. 7. This Court would not have taken note of these submissions of the respondents seriously had it not been a case that there were circumstances warranting that such a contention of the respondents is accepted. As has been pointed out hereinabove, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that if at all he has intended to withdraw his resignation he was required to resume the duties. No attempt was made by him till 31st March, 2008 to resume his duties. On the other hand, when he was offered the order of acceptance of resignation, it was received by him. He accepted the full and final payment of medical bills and advance adjustments by passing a receipt on 5-4-2008. He should not have accepted such amount if at all there was any intention of the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. Similarly, he had handed over the charge of the post and the complete material with him to one Shri Anoop Shukla, who was directed to take over charge from the petitioner and issued a letter to this effect on 4-4-2008. This letter was executed in presence of the witnesses, who have signed it on 4-4-2008. The document was produced along with the return by the respondents of which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner but no attempt was made to explain as to why such a document was executed by him. From the averments made in the rejoinder, nothing is found with respect to meet out such vitally important and serious allegations made by the respondents. If he was of the view that the petitioner has withdrawn the resignation and the same cannot be accepted at all after its withdrawal, at least a protest would have been raised by the petitioner while accepting the amount of final settlement of claims and he would have protested for the delivery of charge of the post. If he was of the view that the petitioner has withdrawn the resignation and the same cannot be accepted at all after its withdrawal, at least a protest would have been raised by the petitioner while accepting the amount of final settlement of claims and he would have protested for the delivery of charge of the post. In the letter, so annexed by the respondents, not a single word is written by the petitioner that he is handing over the charge of his post under protest because he has withdrawn the resignation, which is said to be accepted on 1-4-2008. 8. The law is well settled in this respect. The Apex Court has considered the aspect of becoming a resignation effective. The moment the link of resignor with the office severed, the effect of the resignation starts, as has been held in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. Phoolpati, (2005) 3 SCC 88 . However, if a future date is given for becoming resignation effective, it is well settled law that it can be withdrawn before that date. Now the only question remains in the present case is whether the resignation was ever withdrawn before it has become final or before it has been accepted. The burden was heavily on the petitioner to indicate that such a resignation was withdrawn by him lawfully. As has been held herein above, the petitioner completely failed to establish that the resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance. Similarly, in the case of Secy., Technical Education, U. P. and others vs. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and another, (2007) 4 SCC 492 , the Apex Court has categorically held that if a probationer tenders the resignation and same is accepted without holding any enquiry, nothing wrong is committed. Here in the case in hand the petitioner was a probationer. He tendered his resignation. There was no proof of the fact that he has withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance. Conduct of the petitioner indicates that he has accepted the order of accepting his resignation and has accepted not only the money offered to him as final settlement but has handed over the charge of the post without a demur. In view of this, the principles, which have been laid down by the Apex Court that the resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, are not applicable or useful for the petitioner. In view of this, the principles, which have been laid down by the Apex Court that the resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, are not applicable or useful for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any illegality committed by the respondents in accepting the resignation of the petitioner. Lastly, in the case of Shrikantha S. M. vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 314 , the Apex Court has considered the aspect whether before the delivery of the charge of the post the resignation can be withdrawn or not. The facts in hand are totally different than the case decided by the Apex Court. The petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate that he lawfully withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance. The conduct of the petitioner as has been referred to herein above, goes to show that the petitioner was not intending to withdraw the resignation and only after the acceptance of the same, he started making hue and cry that such a resignation was withdrawn by him in lawful manner and, therefore, could not have been accepted. 9. In view of the discussion hereinabove, there is no force in the writ petition. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.