JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a former P.S.I. has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A) Be pleased to admit this petition. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, and quash and set aside the decision of the respondents dated July 22, 2011, Annexure-F, whereby the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner. (BB) Be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the office order dated July 27, 2012 passed by the respondent No. 3, terminating the services of the petitioner. (C) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, and hold and declare that the respondents have no right or authority to accept resignation of the petitioner after having withdrawn the same and, therefore, the decision of the respondents to take a tentative decision that the petitioner's resignation is intended to be accepted and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to join the duty be quashed and set aside. (CC) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned office order dated July 27, 2012 passed by the respondent No. 3, terminating the services of the petitioner. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned decision of the respondent dated July 22, 2011, Annexure-F and be further pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to join his duties as Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector. (D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deem fit and proper." 2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under: 2.1 The petitioner came to be appointed as the Police Sub-Inspector on 20th November, 2010. According to the appointment letter, he was to undergo one year of the basic training by depositing Rs. 1,00.000/-. He was appointed on a fixed pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 2.2 On 28th November, 2010, the petitioner joined the training. According to the appointment letter, he was to undergo one year of the basic training by depositing Rs. 1,00.000/-. He was appointed on a fixed pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 2.2 On 28th November, 2010, the petitioner joined the training. 2.3 On 29th December, 2010, the petitioner tendered his resignation. On the very same day, the resignation letter was forwarded to the office of the D.G.P. 2.4 On the very next day, i.e., on 30th December, 2010, the petitioner requested that he may be permitted to withdraw his resignation. 2.5 On 4th January, 2011, the letter of withdrawal of the resignation was forwarded to the office of the D.G.P. 2.6 On 4th January, 2011, the petitioner requested for sanction of 3 days leave. The leave for 3 days, i.e., 14th, 15th and 16th January, 2011 was sanctioned. However, thereafter, the petitioner failed to resume and remained on an unauthorized leave for a period of 124 days. 2.7 On 29th March, 2011, he, once again, requested that on account of the family problems and other difficulties, he would not be able to serve and, therefore, his resignation may be accepted. 2.8 On 2nd April, 2011, he requested to accept the resignation on telephone. The office instructed the petitioner to first deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- as the condition precedent for accepting his resignation. 2.9 On 6th April, 2011, he visited the P.T.C. College and gave an undertaking to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of accepting his resignation. 2.10 On 21st May, 2011, he requested to allow him to resume the training. 2.11 On 25th May, 2011, the A.D.G.P. sought necessary instructions whether the petitioner should be permitted to resume the training. In that regard, a letter was addressed to the Director General of Police. The D.G.P. on 4th July, 2011, declined the request of the petitioner to withdraw his resignation as he had remained on an unauthorized leave for more than 124 days and had also not deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the bond executed. The D.G.P. brought to the notice of the petitioner, a Government Resolution dated 30th October, 2003, which provides that all the new appointees who remained unsuccessful in completing the training period, shall be liable to pay the amount as fixed in the bond. 2.12 On 12th July, 2011, the petitioner was informed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2.13 On 25th January, 2012, he deposited Rs. 2.12 On 12th July, 2011, the petitioner was informed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2.13 On 25th January, 2012, he deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- through Chalan. 2.14 On 27th July, 2012, the resignation of the petitioner came to be accepted. 3. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his client, although remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of 124 days, was permitted to resume the training and continued for some time. He submitted that the petitioner wants to serve as the P.S.I. He also submitted that having once withdrawn the resignation, thereafter, there was no question of accepting the same and terminating the services of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP appearing for the State. He submitted that the petitioner never resumed the training, pending his application for acceptance of the resignation. He submitted that the petitioner has exhibited total lethargy, carelessness, negligence and lack of deviation towards the duty and such a person should not be permitted to serve as the Police Officer. He has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents. "6. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sahayak Police Sub Inspector on fix pay by way of the order dated 20.11.2010 for any recruitment on the above mentioned advertisement have to complete the training of 1 year. Copy of the advertisement is very clear that if any person did not completed training for any of the reason then the said person has to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-. Appointment orders specifically states that any unsuccessful person has to pay requisite amount to the Government in case he could not fulfill the conditions as per the appointment order. Hence, the case of the petitioner was considered and directed him to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the District Superintendent, of Police, Sabarkantha and same had been paid by the petitioner on 25.01.2012. Thus it is clear case that the petitioner will not continue for the said post. 7. The deponent further submits that petitioner initially give resignation by way of letter dated 29.12.2010. And the petitioner on very next dated i.e. 30.12.2010 withdraw the resignation. Thereafter the petitioner remained absent for head quarter leave for three days i.e. 14-15-16.01.2011. The petitioner again tender his resignation by way of letter dated 29.03.2011. 7. The deponent further submits that petitioner initially give resignation by way of letter dated 29.12.2010. And the petitioner on very next dated i.e. 30.12.2010 withdraw the resignation. Thereafter the petitioner remained absent for head quarter leave for three days i.e. 14-15-16.01.2011. The petitioner again tender his resignation by way of letter dated 29.03.2011. That before tendering resignation dated 21.05.2001 the petitioner was on under leave of 124 days. The petitioner was unauthorizedly obtained from 17.01.2011 to 20.05.2011. 8. The deponent further submits that the petitioner approach the deponent on 21.05.2011 to join the service again but the deponent has no powers to consider unauthorized persons hence proposal of the petitioner is forwarded to the DG, Gandhinagar by way of letter dated 04.07.2011, and DG, Gandhinagar rejected the case of the petitioner mainly on the ground of unauthorized absence. 9. The deponent further submits that from the letter of the petitioner dated 29.03.2011 and subsequent resignation letter dated 21.05.2011 it becomes clear that the petitioner is physically is not fit to attend the training. The police department is known far police officers who are mentally and physically fit to cop up with the Situation and for effective work. The police personnel has to work for long hours and under heavy mental pressure. When the petitioner by his own submission stated that 'he was suffering from mental and physical problem are even not suitable for the Police Department. Hence, only on' this ground the petition deserves to be rejected. 10. The deponent further submits that petitioner was unauthorized person, from 124 days but the petitioner never applied for leave report which would rational and justifiable reason. Even otherwise petitioner are not entitled for any leave accept 12 casual leave during the time of fix pay." 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to any of the relief's as prayed for in this writ application. 6. The Gujarat Police Manual, 1971, Volume-I, provides for resignation of officer and withdrawing from duty. Clauses-215 and 216 thereof reads as under; "215. 6. The Gujarat Police Manual, 1971, Volume-I, provides for resignation of officer and withdrawing from duty. Clauses-215 and 216 thereof reads as under; "215. Registration of officer and withdrawing from duty: (1) It is not open to any Police Officer of the grade of Inspector or of the subordinate ranks to resign his office or withdraw himself from duties of his office without the written permission of the Commissioner or the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department or of the Principal of a Police Training School, of the Superintendent of Police or of some other Police officer empowered by the Inspector General of Police or the Commissioner to grant such permission. Overstayal of leave without reasonable cause amounts to withdrawing oneself from duty. (2) Such permission shall be granted forthwith if the Police Officer concerned produces a certificate of the Civil Surgeon declaring his incapacity for further Police service. 216. Acceptance of resignation tendered by Government servants:- (1) The resignation tendered by a Government servant becomes effective from the date its acceptance is communicated to the person concerned by the appropriate authority and not from the date the resignation is submitted. (2) Government servant wishing to resign their appointments should give reasonable notice of their intention to resign. The authorities competent to accept such resignation should communicate their decision one way or the other, to the persons concerned as early as possible, and in any case within a period of one month. The decision should not be deferred indefinitely. Amounts, if any, due from the persons concerned shall be recovered before acceptance of their resignation. (3) When Government servants are appointed on contract or have executed bonds undertaking to serve Government for a definite period, the terms of their contract or bonds should be taken into consideration before accepting their resignation. The question whether any penalty is required to be imposed for breach of contract or undertaking should also be considered. If the contracts provide that Government servants should give notice of definite period for termination of the contract, it will be open to the competent authorities to withhold acceptance of resignation till the expiry of the prescribed period. (4) In cases in which resignations are tendered by Government servants while on duty, they should not be relieved until their resignation are accepted by the competent authorities. (4) In cases in which resignations are tendered by Government servants while on duty, they should not be relieved until their resignation are accepted by the competent authorities. If the Government servants remain absent before their resignation is accepted or without obtaining the necessary leave pending acceptance of their resignation, it is open to the competent authorities either to treat the absence as leave without pay or to take suitable departmental action for such unauthorised absence. (5) In cases where as resignation has been tendered by Government servant from whom Government dues are to be recovered, all possible steps should be taken for recovery of dues before the resignation is accepted. If mere non-acceptance of resignation dues not provide adequate compulsion and the payment of recovery due is not received within the period of notice, departmental proceedings should be started with a view to dismissal or removed from service and the resignation should be rejected. (6) As long as a Government servant is under suspension, his resignation should not be accepted as it facilitates his escape from the possibility of a punishment. (7) When any government servant tenders his resignation from service, a report along with all the details of any cases in which he may be involved in one way or another (whether any proceedings have actually been started or not) should be sent to the authority competent to accept the resignation. On receipt of such a report, the competent authority should consider to what extent the Government servant who wishes to resign is responsible and while taking a decision in the matter after due consideration also record his reasons whether or not he appears to be responsible for any charge. After determining these issue the decision regarding acceptance or otherwise of the resignation may be taken." 7. The plain reading of Clause-216 would indicate that the authorities competent to accept the resignation should communicate their decision, one way or the other, to the persons concerned as early as possible, and in any case, within a period of one month. It is no doubt true that in the case in hand, the resignation was tendered on 29th December, 2010 and the same, ultimately, was accepted by an order dated 27th July, 2012. The argument of Mr. It is no doubt true that in the case in hand, the resignation was tendered on 29th December, 2010 and the same, ultimately, was accepted by an order dated 27th July, 2012. The argument of Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in between, his client made a request to withdraw his resignation and the authorities should have permitted him to withdraw and resume his training. 8. I am unable to appreciate the argument because it appears that the petitioner himself was not sure as to what he wanted to do. He, first, tendered his resignation in December, 2010. Then, he made a request to withdraw his resignation thereafter. Again, on 29.3.2011, he requested to accept his resignation. If he wanted to continue in the service, then there was no need for him to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- which was the condition precedent for the purpose of accepting the resignation. 9. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner, at no point of time, exhibited any seriousness in discharge of his duties. He should not forget that he was appointed in the police force. 10. Let me assume for the moment that there was some delay on the part of the authorities in dealing with the resignation, but that by itself is no reason for me to allow this writ application and grant the reliefs as prayed for. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.