JUDGMENT 1. This intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.57860/2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed. 2. The appellant, who was working as a Constable - General Duty in CRPF having been appointed with effect from 19.02.2003, had submitted resignation seeking voluntary retirement on 18.01.2017. The said resignation was accepted on 25.01.2017. Subsequently, the appellant submitted representation on 21.04.2017 for withdrawal/reconsideration of acceptance of his resignation which came to be rejected as per the endorsement dated 22.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure - J). Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant approached the writ Court inter alia seeking consequential reliefs in addition to the challenge made to the communications dated 25.01.2017 and 22.05.2017 at Annexures - F and J. Writ Petition having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. Learned Senior counsel Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had made a representation on 18.01.2017 and the same was accepted by the respondent No.2 on 25.01.2017 with effect from 27.01.2017. Though the representation was submitted on 21.04.2017 to withdraw his resignation, the respondent No.1 has passed the order impugned against Rule 26 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1965 ('Rules' for short) on an erroneous ground that the restoration in services within 90 days from the date of submission of the resignation letter was not sought for. Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Gauhati in the case of Navin Ram, Ex. Rifleman (Gd) vs. The Union of India and others passed in W.P.(C) No.6891/2010 (D.D. 07.08.2012). 4. Learned CGSC Sri. M.N. Kumar appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Rule 26 of the Rules. Drawing the attention of Court to Rule 26(4)(iii), it was submitted that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation has to be not more than 90 days. Indisputedly, the request was made by the appellant on 21.04.2017 to reinstate him/permitting him to withdraw the resignation. Indisputedly, the request was made by the appellant on 21.04.2017 to reinstate him/permitting him to withdraw the resignation. However, the said representation was not submitted before the Appointing Authority. By the time the request was placed before the Appointing Authority, 90 days period was over. Learned counsel further submitted that an undertaking was given by the appellant that no withdrawal of resignation would be made by him at a later stage under any circumstances whatsoever be the reason thereof. The said undertaking was given after the appellant was personally called and explained the effect of resignation that would cause the financial hardship. The appellant has made a request for transfer at Bengaluru or Delhi, which indeed was not feasible and on the transfer made to Chattisgarh, he has resigned even after the counseling was made to him. Hence, having regard to these vital aspects, the respondent No.1 has passed the order as per Annexure - J rejecting his request. The same having been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge, no interference is warranted by this Court. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Rule 26(4)(iii) of the Rules reads thus: '26. Forfeiture of service on resignation: (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:- (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days.' 7. The said Rule makes it clear that the relevant dates would be the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation. The period of absence between these two relevant dates shall not be more than 90 days. Admittedly, the resignation submitted on 18.01.2017 was accepted by the respondent No.2 on 25.01.2017 with effect from 27.01.2017 and the representation was made on 21.04.2017 for withdrawal of the resignation, which is well within 90 days from the date on which the resignation became effective. Admittedly, the resignation submitted on 18.01.2017 was accepted by the respondent No.2 on 25.01.2017 with effect from 27.01.2017 and the representation was made on 21.04.2017 for withdrawal of the resignation, which is well within 90 days from the date on which the resignation became effective. The respondent No.1 has proceeded to consider the representation as beyond 90 days from the date of submission of the resignation letter, which goes against the tenor of the Rule. At the cost of repetition, we observe that the relevant date is the date on which the resignation became effective not the date of submission of the resignation letter. 8. It is true that entire process of allowing the person to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation has to be made within 90 days. Admitting the representation dated 21.04.2017 submitted by the appellant, the request was forwarded to Director General, CRPF, New Delhi for appropriate action on 12.05.2017. The respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order on 22.05.2017 rejecting the request of the appellant sans indicating the exact date of receipt of representation for withdrawal of resignation. It is vague and cryptic order passed in a cavalier manner. The arguments now advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents are not forthcoming in the order impugned at Annexure - J. 9. It is well settled legal principle that reasons are the heartbeat of a valid order. Any order passed without valid reasons is void ab initio. The main reason recorded for rejection of the request for withdrawal of the resignation is, no restoration in services was sought within 90 days from the date of submission of resignation letter. As already discussed above, the same has not been in conformity with the Rules and for want of reasons assigned in the order impugned, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the respondent No.2. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference. Hence, we pass the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.57860/2017 and the communication dated 22.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 are set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference. Hence, we pass the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.57860/2017 and the communication dated 22.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 are set aside. iii) The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with law by giving cogent reasons for taking a decision in the matter, in accordance with law and such compliance shall be made as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. iv) No order as to costs.