Judgment 1. The petitioner, Alok Sharma, who was working as Scientific Officer with the respondent-Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (Corporation, for short), after his appointment in the year 2002 vide the order (Annex.P/2) dated 25.04.2002, resigned after three years from the said service by a communication dated 22nd August, 2005 (Annex.R/1) and requested the respondent-Director (Personnel) of NPCIL to accept his resignation with effect from 24.08.2005. He did not give the minimum required three months' notice before being relieved from the said services. Therefore, the respondents sent him a communication dated 12.05.2005 (Annex.R/3) to the petitioner that the notice pay of Rs.66,177/- including the advance drawn by him at the time of his transfer, would be deductible and payable by him before such resignation is accepted. The petitioner gave an undertaking on 13.09.2005 in response to the said communication (Annex.R/2) to the effect that if any amount is due to be paid by him, the same may be deducted from his provident fund deposits lying with the respondent-Corporation and the balance, if any, may be informed to him so that he can pay the same. 2. The respondent-Corporation after adjusting the said amount against the provident fund amount, informed the petitioner vide the communication dated 03.02.2006 (Annex.R/4) that still a sum of Rs.5,611/-was still due to be recovered from him on account of shortfall in the notice period and the petitioner, accordingly, paid the said amount of Rs.5,611/-vide the Demand Draft dated 27.01.2006, and copy whereof is placed on record along-with reply to writ petition as Annex.R/4. 3. The competent authority, namely, Managing Director of the Corporation, thereafter accepted the resignation tendered by the petitioner with effect from 25.02.2006 by treating the period of unauthorized absence from 25.08.2005 to 25.02.2006 as 'dies-non' and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide the order (Annex.P/4) dated 16.03.2006, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. The petitioner in the meanwhile appears to have undertaken certain correspondence through his father, Sh. N.L. Sharma, and requested the respondent-Corporation to give him the experience certificate of serving the respondent-Corporation, for which certain requirements were raised by the respondent Corporation but the petitioner vide Annex.P/6 dated 12.01.2007. 4. The petitioner in the meanwhile appears to have undertaken certain correspondence through his father, Sh. N.L. Sharma, and requested the respondent-Corporation to give him the experience certificate of serving the respondent-Corporation, for which certain requirements were raised by the respondent Corporation but the petitioner vide Annex.P/6 dated 12.01.2007. 4. After a period of about one year of the correspondence of that resignation w.e.f. 25.02.2006, communicated to the Director of the respondent Corporation that his resignation letter dated 22.08.2005 was given under mental depression condition, in which he was unable to take free voluntary decision and, therefore, the said resignation letter may be treated as withdrawn and he may be allowed to re-join his duties at the same place where he was working. The said request was, of course, turned down by the respondent Corporation vide order (Annex.P/7) dated 26.02.2007 that in view of once the resignation having been accepted and having become effective, there is no question of allowing him to resume the duties and such withdrawal of the resignation, if at all, could be permitted only within 90 days i.e. from submission of the resignation letter and not at this belated stage. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid situation, and the alleged failure on the part of the respondent-Corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation letter submitted by him on the ground of alleged mental depression condition, the present writ petition has been filed in this Court on 02.01.2008. 6. Upon issuance of the notices, the respondent-Corporation has filed the reply to the writ petition and contested the present writ petition and the reply is countered to by a rejoinder on behalf of petitioner along-with which certain medical evidence in support of his claim of depression with paranoid features vide Annex.P/12, the certificate/prescription slip issued by Dr. Ajay Saxena, Johari Hospital, Alwar, has been produced. 7. Mr. Ajay Saxena, Johari Hospital, Alwar, has been produced. 7. Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the only prayer made at this stage is that the respondent Corporation NPCIL be directed to consider the withdrawal application in view of the medical evidence adduced by the petitioner and since the period of 90 days for such withdrawal cannot be said to be a straitjacket dead line and, therefore, a withdrawal request at any point of time can be considered and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondent Corporation can be directed by this Court and the petitioner was a young man of 30 years at the time of filing of this writ petition in the year 2008 and a sympathetic view of the matter deserves to be taken by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority, but the communication (Annex.P/4) has been issued by the Deputy Manager (HR) of the respondent Corporation at Rawatbhata Site, where he was serving, who had jurisdiction to accept the resignation of the petitioner. The said contention was sought to be repelled by the respondents by the following averments made in their reply at Page 45 of the paper book, which is also quoted herein for ready reference:- “....... After the completion of all the requisite formalities, the case of the petitioner, being a Group-A officer was put-up to Chairman & Managing Director, NPCIL who is the competent authority to accept the resignation. The competent authority accepted the resignation of petitioner w.e.f. 25.02.2006 and the same was communicated to RR Site Authorities vide letter dated 27.02.2006, which in turn was conveyed to the petitioner vide Office-Order No.RAPS/04627/ Admn./E.II/2006/19 dated 16/03/2006 through Deputy Manager (P & IR), RR Site. Copies of letter dated 12.09.2005, undertaking dated 13.09.2005, demand draft dated 27.01.2006 and letters dated 27.02.2006 & 16.03.2006 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2 to R/6 respectively.” 8. On the other hand, Mr. Varun Singhvi appearing for Mr. Copies of letter dated 12.09.2005, undertaking dated 13.09.2005, demand draft dated 27.01.2006 and letters dated 27.02.2006 & 16.03.2006 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2 to R/6 respectively.” 8. On the other hand, Mr. Varun Singhvi appearing for Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent NPCIL Corporation opposed the writ petition with equal vehemence and force and submitted that firstly the petitioner has not established anywhere, except the documents filed with the rejoinder that he was under such a mental condition that he could not take an appropriate and free decision to resign from the services of the respondent Corporation. On the contrary, he urged that the documents placed on record with the reply filed by the respondent Corporation unequivocally show that the petitioner was fully aware of what he is doing and consequence thereof. He not only requested the respondents to accept his resignation immediately after two days of giving the letter on 22.08.2005 and stopped coming to office but in the immediately ensuing correspondence with the respondents, he even offered to pay the money in lieu of shortfall of the period of notice required for that purpose; and upon adjustment of the amount due to the respondent Corporation, he paid the balance amount of Rs.5,611/-by the demand draft dated 27.01.2006. All these correspondences and subsequent acts of seeking an Experience Certificate from the respondent Corporation, prima facie, indicated that he was in search of some other job but having failed there, upon a change of mind, much after the resignation was duly accepted by the competent authority of NPCIL and communicated to him, he took a “U” turn and on the pretext of mental sickness or depression, he gave a withdrawal letter after about a year on 12.01.2007, which was bound to be turned down and was so turned down by the impugned communication dated 26.02.2007 (Annex.P/7). 9. Mr. Varun Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that upon the acceptance of the resignation, the retiral dues of EPF and other dues were settled by the payment of Rs.86,348/-which were paid to the petitioner vide Demand Draft No.949330 dated 19.07.2006 vide the communication dated 20.07.2006 (Annex.R/10) and which was accepted by the petitioner without any demur or protest, then or even later. Thus there was no question of re-opening the said chapter or re-consideration of the resignation withdrawal application. Thus there was no question of re-opening the said chapter or re-consideration of the resignation withdrawal application. He also submitted that if this was to be permitted, anybody serving in a responsible position in the Corporation like NPCIL, would resign, search for another job and upon failure, would turn back and claim resumption of duties in the Corporation on false pretexts of mental sickness, which was also seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. 11. The case in hand, appears to be a clear case of an after thought by the petitioner and he cannot be permitted to withdraw his resignation at the belated stage, after about one year of its acceptance by the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation. The resignation letter dated 22.08.2005 cannot be said to be a communication made in hot haste or without application of mind by the petitioner. The petitioner clearly states in his resignation letter dated 22.08.2005, “Most respectfully, presently I am in RAPP-5&6. Due to personal reason I want to resign. Please accept my resignation from 24/08/05.” The said communication simpliciter is not accepted by the respondent Corporation without anything else done by them in the matter. Before accepting the resignation, they clearly communicated to the petitioner that the requisite notice of three months has not been given by him and, therefore, for requiring a waiver of the period of three months notice, the salary for the said period of shortfall period will be deducted or would be recoverable from the petitioner, to which the petitioner agreed to abide by and conveyed categorically his stand vide Annex.R/3 dated 13.09.2005, and the Undertaking as furnished by him is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - “UNDERTAKING Since, I had tendered my resignation w.e.f. 24th August, 2005 and I have to deposit sum of Rs.66171/- Rupees sixty six thousand one hundred seventy one only towards shortfall in notice period and outstanding amount towards pay advance drawn by me from V.S.B. Mumbai on my transfer to RAPP-5 & 6. Since, I do not have sufficient money to deposit towards shortfall in notice period and outstanding amount of pay advance drawn by me while I was transferred from V.S.B., Mumbai. Since, I do not have sufficient money to deposit towards shortfall in notice period and outstanding amount of pay advance drawn by me while I was transferred from V.S.B., Mumbai. I undertake that out of my EPF amount and other dues if any, payable to me, this amount of shortfall in notice period and outstanding pay advance can be adjusted to the extent possible and if any amount still remains unrecovered, the same will be deposited by me through D.D. drawn in favour of NPCIL as and when I hear from RAPP-5 & 6 authorities. I submit this undertaking in good spirit and without any pressure on me and my mind in the state of soundness of my mental and physical health. Sd/- (Alok Sharma) SD/C, RAPP- 5 & 6” 12. He categorically states in the said Undertaking that since he does not have sufficient money to deposit towards the salary in lieu of the shortfall of the notice period, and the outstanding amount of pay advance drawn by him while he was transferred from V.S.B., Mumbai to RAPP 5 & 6, Rawatbhatta, he gives the undertaking that the said amount of notice period may be recovered from his provident fund deposit lying with the respondent Corporation; and any amount still remaining due, will be deposited by him through demand draft. He also ends his undertaking document significantly by saying that he is submitting this undertaking in good spirit and without any pressure on him and his mind in the state of soundness of his mental and physical health. This undertaking in whole, neither reflects any non-application of mind nor displays a depressed mental state, as claimed later on by the petitioner. 13. On the other hand, the said Undertaking is in the continuity of the resignation letter and it fortifies the same. The respondent Corporation acted upon the same and after deducting such amount a further remittance of payment of the remaining amount of Rs.5,611/-by demand draft dated 27.01.2006 by the petitioner himself only, the resignation letter was accepted by the competent authority i.e. the Managing Director on 25.02.2006 treating the period of absence from 25.08.2005 (the date from the petitioner wanted his resignation to be accepted) to 25.02.2006 (when his resignation is accepted by the competent authority) as 'dies-non' (break in service). The communication of such acceptance of resignation by the Dy. The communication of such acceptance of resignation by the Dy. Manager (HR) of the Corporation Site Office vide Annex.P/4 or Annex.R/6, which are the same document viz. dated 16.03.2006, which clearly stipulated that on the acceptance of his resignation, he is relieved from site finally. This does not mean that the resignation has been accepted by the Dy. Manager (HR) himself, but he merely conveys the acceptance of the resignation of the competent authority, namely, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. The further act of the petitioner of asking for the experience certificate in the meanwhile much before he withdraws the resignation letter, clearly shows that he continues to make efforts for seeking job elsewhere or even if it were not to be so, one who is seeking experience certificate, is not certainly thinking of the withdrawal of his resignation, at least at that point of time and this happens in the middle of 2006. Thereafter, after a period of about six months, for unknown reasons, the petitioner approached the respondent Corporation seeking withdrawal of his resignation letter, which had already become a fait accompli, and which upon being rejected, brings him to this Court. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case neither calls for any re-consideration of the case of the petitioner by the respondent Corporation, nor any such mandamus direction can be issued to the respondent Corporation in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for allowing the petitioner to establish his so-called mental state way back in the year 2006-07 now after so many years in the year 2014 and ask the respondent Corporation to arrive at a different conclusion, possibly on such unproved facts in the contemporary period. The resignation from the service is a voluntary act of a Government servant or the employee of the Government Enterprises like the respondent-Corporation and the said communication of this nature, is not given in a fit of moment or a spur of moment, un-knowing the consequences thereof. 15. This Court is satisfied that the subsequent documents immediately following the resignation letter dated 22.08.2005 clearly establish on the contrary, the fit mental condition and appropriate decision taken by the petitioner in furtherance of his resignation letter and the series of acts clearly establish that he finally and irrevocably chose to part ways with the respondent- Corporation. 16. 15. This Court is satisfied that the subsequent documents immediately following the resignation letter dated 22.08.2005 clearly establish on the contrary, the fit mental condition and appropriate decision taken by the petitioner in furtherance of his resignation letter and the series of acts clearly establish that he finally and irrevocably chose to part ways with the respondent- Corporation. 16. In these circumstances, the respondent Corporation cannot be compelled or bound to re-consider the stand taken by the petitioner on unavailable grounds at a much later point of time, may be because he failed to secure any other job or for any other reason. Any misplaced sympathy on the ground of comparatively young age of petitioner in his 30's and issuing any such direction as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not considered necessary by this Court in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.