JUDGMENT : The Writ Petition has been filed, being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty, on the premise that the petitioner had resigned from its service. The petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant in the 1st respondent, had submitted Ext.P11 letter on 9.6.2015, expressing his intention to resign from the service of the first respondent. On the basis of the petitioner’s letter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 communication dated 20.6.2015, requesting the petitioner to get released from his outstanding liabilities as subscriber, hirer, surety, guarantor, loanee etc., urgently in order to accept the petitioner’s resignation from the company’s service. In Ext.P3, it was also stated that since the petitioner had failed to give advance notice of resignation, he had to remit one month’s basic pay (Rs. 13,090/-), as Notice Pay. After receipt of Ext.P3 communication, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 letter dated 4.7.2015, stating that he was unable to close the liabilities as required in Ext.P3 letter and further requesting the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation letter and allow him to continue at the Sreekaryam Branch. Later, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 communication dated 4.9.2015, requiring him to receive his Group Savings Linked Insurance (GSLI) claim amount. Thereupon, the Writ Petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 and the acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. 2. The specific contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, the petitioner having withdrawn his resignation prior to its acceptance, the resignation had not come into effect and therefore, the respondents were bound to permit the petitioner to continue in service. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 stating that, as per Ext.P4, the petitioner had informed the respondents about his inability to clear the dues and that considering the petitioner’s request, the respondents had decided to accept the petitioner’s resignation and had, vide Ext.P5, requested the petitioner to collect the GSLI claim amount. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 stating that, as per Ext.P4, the petitioner had informed the respondents about his inability to clear the dues and that considering the petitioner’s request, the respondents had decided to accept the petitioner’s resignation and had, vide Ext.P5, requested the petitioner to collect the GSLI claim amount. It is stated that the resignation of the petitioner from the service of the establishment had come into effect and that if at all, the petitioner had delayed the formalities after resignation and hence the same cannot make the resignation invalid. The further contention is to the effect that from the conduct of the petitioner, after submission of the letter of resignation, in not having reported for duty thereafter, it is clear that even the petitioner was convinced about the fact that his resignation had taken effect. 3. From the rival contentions, the issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to when, if at all, the petitioner’s resignation had taken effect. For resolving this issue, a close scrutiny of the relevant documents is necessary. Ext.P11 is the letter of resignation, wherein, the petitioner had expressed his wish to resign from KSFE employment and had also requested the 3rd respondent, to whom the letter was addressed, to forward his request to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent to whom Ext.P3 was forwarded did not accept the resignation and on the other hand, required the petitioner to get released from the liabilities mentioned in Ext.P3 communication, as a condition for accepting his resignation. The 2nd respondent further requested the petitioner to remit one month’s basic pay as notice pay, since he had failed to give advance notice of resignation. Though Ext.P4 is dated 4.7.2015, it was sent only on 23.7.2015, as is evident from the endorsement in the postal receipt. Even if it is taken that Ext.P4 was sent only on 23.7.2015, the respondents do not have a case that the petitioner’s resignation was accepted prior to that date. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Rajkumar v. Union of India ( AIR 1969 SC 180 ), Union of India & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors. ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ) and Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. (1987 Suppl. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Rajkumar v. Union of India ( AIR 1969 SC 180 ), Union of India & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors. ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ) and Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. (1987 Suppl. SCC 228) in support of his contention that the resignation submitted by an employee would come into effect only upon its acceptance by the employer and that prior to such acceptance, it is always open for the employee to withdraw his resignation. In Rajkumar’s case, the appellant, an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service, had submitted his resignation to the Chief Secretary of the State and had requested it to be forwarded to the Government of India for early acceptance. Thereafter, the Government of India accepted the resignation of the appellant. Later, the appellant changed his mind and requested the Chief Secretary to recommend “acceptance of the withdrawal” of his resignation from the Indian Administrative Service. Meanwhile, a letter was issued by the State Government, accepting the resignation of the appellant and requiring him to hand over charge to another officer. Thereupon, the appellant moved the High Court seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari and for quashing the orders accepting his resignation issued by the Central and State Governments. The Writ Petition having been dismissed by the High Court, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. Taking note of the specific request made by the appellant for accepting his resignation, followed by such acceptance by the appropriate Governments, the Apex Court held that no rule has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which enacts that for an order accepting the resignation to be effective, it must be communicated to the person submitting his resignation. It was further held that where a public servant has invited determination of his employment by his letter of resignation, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance. It was also held that till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing its acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae and not thereafter. Gopal Chandra Misra’s case pertained to the issue arising out of the resignation submitted by a High Court Judge. The majority of the Constitution Bench, which decided the case, espoused the general principles regarding resignation and held as follows: “The general principle regarding resignation is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘prospective’ resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office-tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. In the case of a Judge of a High Court, who is a constitutional functionary and under Proviso(a) to Art.217(1) has a unilateral right or privilege to resign his office, his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office. If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in praesenti, the resignation terminates his office-tenure forthwith, and cannot therefore, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. But, if he by such writing, chooses to resign from a future date, the act of resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can at any time before the arrival of that prospective date on which it was intended to be effective withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal. Civil Misc. Writ No.1172 of 1977 D/- 28.10.1977 (All.) (F.B.), Reversed. Case law discussed.” In Balram Gupta’s case, the appellant had withdrawn his resignation before the expiry of the notice period. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that the resignation of the appellant, who was a Government servant, was to take effect on a subsequent date prospectively and that the withdrawal was long before that date. Case law discussed.” In Balram Gupta’s case, the appellant had withdrawn his resignation before the expiry of the notice period. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that the resignation of the appellant, who was a Government servant, was to take effect on a subsequent date prospectively and that the withdrawal was long before that date. It was therefore held that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission sought by the appellant for withdrawal of his resignation. The Apex Court therefore observed as follows: “In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one’s future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways “to ease out” uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees.” 5. A Division Bench of this Court also had occasion to consider the question as to when a resignation would become effective. After detailed survey of the precedents, the Division Bench in Shabeer Ahammed v. Sivadasan V.P. & Ors. (ILR 2018 (3) Ker.104) went on to hold as follows: “A complete and effective act of resigning from office which severs the link of the resignor with his office and terminates its tenure. Where effectiveness of resignation depends upon acceptance of the same by the proper authority, it can always be withdrawn until accepted because the resignation is not complete in the eye of law unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Resignation which depends for its effectiveness upon the acceptance by the proper authority is like an offer which may be withdrawn before it is accepted. A resignation submitted by an employee is no resignation in the eye of law until it is accepted by the employer as per the rules. Resignation which depends for its effectiveness upon the acceptance by the proper authority is like an offer which may be withdrawn before it is accepted. A resignation submitted by an employee is no resignation in the eye of law until it is accepted by the employer as per the rules. So long as it is not an effective resignation, there can be no bar to withdraw it.” From the authoritative pronouncements cited above, it is clear that, in the absence of proof regarding acceptance resignation by the employer, there is no severance of the jural relationship between the employee and the employer and therefore, it is always open for the employee to withdraw his resignation for valid reasons. As far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner had submitted the reasons for his decision to seek withdrawal of his resignation. As would be evident from Ext.P3, the respondents had imposed conditions for accepting the petitioner’s resignation. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with those conditions. Even according to the respondents, the decision to accept the petitioner’s resignation was taken after receipt of Ext.P4, under which the petitioner had sought for withdrawal of his resignation citing his inability to clear off the liabilities and also for the reason that his working environment had become more conducive. No reason is forthcoming from the respondents as to whether, the request for withdrawal of resignation was considered and if so, the reason as to why it was turned down. In such circumstances, the fact that the respondents had later issued Ext.P5, which contained an omnibus statement requiring the petitioner to receive his GSLI claim amount, cannot be perceived as indicative of acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation by the respondents, prior to receipt of his request for withdrawal. 6. The other contention sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents is based on the conduct of the petitioner after submission of the resignation letter. According to the respondents, the fact that the petitioner did not report for duty after submitting Ext.P11, is ample proof that the petitioner himself had proceeded on the premise that his resignation was accepted. This contention of the respondents is refuted by the petitioner, by placing reliance on Ext.P4, wherein he had requested the respondents to permit him to continue at the Branch where he had been working. This contention of the respondents is refuted by the petitioner, by placing reliance on Ext.P4, wherein he had requested the respondents to permit him to continue at the Branch where he had been working. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner has stated that in spite of his request, the respondents did not allow him to join duty. In such circumstances, the irrefutable conclusion is that the petitioner had sought to withdraw his resignation prior to its acceptance by the respondents. Since, as on the date on which the petitioner submitted his request for withdrawal of resignation, the employer-employee relationship was subsisting, the respondents were bound to accept the petitioner’s request. In such circumstances, the relief sought in the Writ Petition is liable to allowed, irrespective of any decision to accept the petitioner’s resignation taken by the respondents after receipt of Ext.P4. Consequently, Ext.P5 is quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join duty and continue to work in the post of Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. This shall be done within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.