JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Kapil Muni Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by District Judge, Faizabad. 3. Facts of the present case are that on 6.1.2000 the petitioner was initially appointed on the Class-III post in the office of District Judge, Banda. On his own request, transferred on 28.7.2001 to Faizabad. 4. On 15.2.2010, he tendered his resignation from service to the District Judge, Faizabad on personal ground. The District Judge, Faizabad on the said application has called a report from the concerned officer and thereafter in the matter in question certain correspondents have been taken place. 5. Lastly by an order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure 1) the application of petitioner for resignation from service has been accepted by the O.P.No. 1/District Judge, Faizabad, the findings which given while accepting the same is as under : Þvr% Jh lksudj dk in ,oa dk;ZHkkj ls eqDr gksus ds lUnHkZ esa fnukad 15-2-2010 dh ÁLrqr ÁkFkuk i=@R;kx i= vkt fnukad 7-6-2012 dks Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vkt dh frfFk ls muls lsokeqDr fd;k tkrk gSA Jh lksudj }kjk fnukad 27-2-2010 rd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 28-2-2010 dks vodk'k Fkk 1-3-2010 ls vkt rd fcuk fdlh vodk'k ds vuqifLFkr jgs gSA muds }kjk insu lsok nkf;Ro dh iwfrZ esa dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, fnukad 1-3-2010 ls osru dk dksbZ ykHk mUgsa ugha feysxk rFkk mŸkj Áns'k forh; gLriqfLrdk [kaM nks] Hkkx 2 ls 4 ds fefYu;e 56¼x½ ds Ákfo/kku ds vuqlkj isa'ku ls lEcaf/kr dksbZ ykHk Jh lksudj dks] lsokdky chl o"kZ ls de fgus ds dkju] ns; ugha gksxkA loZlEcaf/kr rnuqlkj lwfpr gksAÞ 6. Thereafter, as per the version of the petitioner, who was ill and under medical treatment uptill 17.8.2012. On 18.8.2012, the Doctor declared him medically fit, So, on 21.8.2012 he went to join his duties alongwith medical certificate and fitness certificate and he was not allowed to join his duties on the ground that resignation given by him on 15.2.2010 has been accepted by the authority concerned on 7.6.2012. 7. In view of the abovesaid factual background, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner thereby challenging the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by District Judge, Faizabad. 8. 7. In view of the abovesaid factual background, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner thereby challenging the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by District Judge, Faizabad. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. The word ‘Resignation’ in relation to an office connotes the act of giving up or relinquishment of the office. To relinquish office means to cease to hold office or to lose hold of the office. Therefore, it means that the employees wants to sever his relation from the employer without any riders and then only it would amount to resignation. 10. Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 77 page 311 defines the words ‘resign’ and ‘resignation’ as under: “RESIGN” To give up; to surrender by a formal act; to yield; to relinquish; to give up one’s office or position; to withdrawn from. The word” resign” in its ordinary and usual sense, imports a voluntary act, and has been held not to include the act of one whose continuance in a position has been terminated by death or by induction into the armed forces under the Selective Service Act. “RESIGNATION. It has been said that “resignation” is a term of legal art, having legal connotation which describe certain legal results. It is characteristically the voluntary surrender of a position by the one resigning, made freely and not duress, and the word is defined generally as meaning the act of resigning or giving up, as a claim, possession, or position.” In Words and Phrases (permanent Edn.) Vol. 37 at page 473, the word ‘Resign’ denoting voluntarily act, relinquish to give up, surrender by formal out, yield, relinquish, give up ones’ office or position, or withdraw from it. Further at age 436 the word resignation has been define as : “To constitute a ‘ resignation’, it must be unconditional and with an intent to operate as such. There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office accompanied by an act of relinquishment. It is to give back, to give up in a formal manner, an office.” 11. Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Page 1310 defines the resignation as formal renouncement or relinquishment of an office. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by act of relinquishment. It is to give back, to give up in a formal manner, an office.” 11. Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Page 1310 defines the resignation as formal renouncement or relinquishment of an office. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by act of relinquishment. It is said that resignatio est juris proprii spontanea refutatio i.e. resignation is spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right thus the term of resignation implies voluntarily surrender of the position by a person resigning and acting freely not under duress and it becomes effective when the authority competent to make appointment accept it. 12. Moreover the resignation must be unambiguous and where an ambiguous letter of resignation is submitted, the authority should right to the employee to explain or clear the ambiguity instead of proceeding to accept the same. Further, the resignation becomes absolute when it is accepted by the appointing authority, date of communication of acceptance to him is not material. 13. Once the appointing authority accepts the resignation submitted by the Government servant, it becomes absolute and cannot be withdrawn thereafter. The date on which he was informed of the such acceptance is not material for the purpose till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the meaning of the word” resigning office” in the case of Union of India etc. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others, AIR 1978 SC 694 , held as under : “In the general juristic: sense, also the meaning of “ resigning office” is not different. There also, as a rule, both, the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment, are necessary to constitute a complete and operative resignation (see, e.g. American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Volume 15A, page 80) although the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. Thus, resigning office necessarily involves relinquishment of the office, which implies cessation or termination of, or cutting as under from the office. Thus, resigning office necessarily involves relinquishment of the office, which implies cessation or termination of, or cutting as under from the office. Indeed the completion of the resignation and the vacation of the office, are the causal and effectual aspects of one and the same event.” Further in para 42 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court approving the principle of withdrawal before the relationship of the employer and the employee held as under : “The general principle that emerges from the foregoing conspectus is that in the absence of anything to the contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office post, an intimation in writing sent to the ; competent authority by the incumbent, of his intention or proposal to resign his office/post from a future specific date, can be withdrawn by him at any time before it becomes effective, i.e. before it effects termination of the tenure of the office/post or the employment.” 15. In the case of P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “ It may be conceded that it is open to a servant to make his resignation operative from a future date and to withdraw such resignation before its acceptance. The question as to when a Government servant’s resignation becomes effect came up for consideration by this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 857 ; (AIR 1969 SC, 180). It was held that the services of a Government servant normally stand terminated form the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, unless there is any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of services to the contrary. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply to the case.” 16. In Moti Ram v. Param Dev, (1993) 2 SCC 725, this Court observed as hereunder: “As pointed out by this Court, ‘resignation’ means the spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment. It has also been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it, Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 , If the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority. The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in praesenti. A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the date of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intention to relinquish, e.g. acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it.” 17. In Union of India v. Wing Commender T Porthasarathy, (2001) 1 SCC 158 , the Apex Court has held that when a public servant has tendered resignation his service normally stands terminated from the date on which the letter of his request is accepted by the appropriate authority and the absence of any law or statutory rule governing the condition of his service contrary to the delay not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. 18. In the case of Dr. 18. In the case of Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 1 SCC 701 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that letter when constitutes resignation, such a letter, held must be unconditional and intending to operate as such. Where an employee, required to submit his explanation for a certain lapse on his part, while submitting his explanation added that if the explanation was found to be not acceptable he would have no option left but to tender his resignation with immediate effect, held, such a letter did not amount to resignation. At best it could amount to a threatened offer to resign. The words “with immediate effect” in the said letter, held, could not be given undue importance dehors the context tenor of the language used, the purport of the letter and the portion of the letter indicating the circumstances in which the letter was written. Moreover, stopping the domestic enquiry by the management consequent to acceptance of the alleged resignation, held, had not significance in ascertaining the true or real intention of the said letter. 19. The Supreme Court in North Zone Cultural Center and another v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, (2005) 5 SCC 455, has observed that the resignation becomes effective on acceptance even if not communicated. Non Communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided there is in fact on acceptance before the withdrawal when the relevant rules not postulating communication of acceptance as a condition precedent for coming into effect of resignation. Employee tendering resignation with immediate effect and employer accepting the same on the same day but communicating the acceptance to the employee after 13 days. During the intervening period, the employee withdrawing his resignation. Such delay of mere 13 days, held, not an undue delay so as to infer that resignation had not already been accepted. Even the continued attendance to duty and signing of attendance register by the said employee during the intervening period held, of no assistance to claim that the resignation had not taken effect. More so, when there was no responsible officer in the office during that time and taking the advantage of that situation the employee had marked his attendance, hence the High Court’s decision holding that communication of the acceptance of resignation subsequent to withdrawal of the resignation by the employee had become redundant was held improper. 20. More so, when there was no responsible officer in the office during that time and taking the advantage of that situation the employee had marked his attendance, hence the High Court’s decision holding that communication of the acceptance of resignation subsequent to withdrawal of the resignation by the employee had become redundant was held improper. 20. Thus, in view of the facts stated hereinabvoe, as per the law, admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner had submitted his resignation from service on 15.2.2010 on personal grounds and the same has been accepted by the O.P. No. 1 on 7.6.2012. Accordingly, once the same has been accepted, it is not open to the petitioner to withdraw the same subsequently hence there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 passed by O.P. No. 1/District Judge, Faizabad which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 21. In the result, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ——————