ORDER : (Nikhil S. Kariel, J.) 1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Ninad Shah on behalf of the petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos.16166/2023, 16167/2023 and 16598/2023, learned senior advocate Mr.I.H.Syed with learned advocate Mr.Salim Saiyed on behalf of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.16168/2023 and learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu on behalf of the respondent – Corporation. 2. The present petitions were preferred inter alia challenging show cause notices issued to the petitioners on 24.08.2023 more particularly on the ground that the respondents were proposing to terminate the services of the petitioners without resorting to any departmental inquiry on the ground of alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu on behalf of the respondent Corporation has submitted that the respondent Corporation is inclined to conduct a departmental inquiry as per Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and whereas learned advocate would submit that the petitioners may be directed to cooperate with the departmental inquiry for its expeditious completion. In response to the said submission by learned advocate Mr.Naidu, both learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta and learned senior advocate Mr.Syed would make a statement that the petitioners would fully cooperate with the respondent in expeditious decision in the departmental proceedings and whereas, the petitioners shall not seek any adjournment from the respondent subject to the petitioners being given appropriate and adequate opportunity. 4. While the above would be the position insofar as the petitions except SCA No.16598/2023, since an additional contention is raised, the same requires further consideration, thus, the following order is passed:- In Special Civil Application No.16598/2023 (A) Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Station Officer in the Fire and Emergency Services of the respondent Corporation vide an order dated 28.05.2019. The said appointment was on fixed pay for a particular period and whereas the services of the appointees were to be governed more particularly as per the conditions mentioned in the said order. The said appointment was on fixed pay for a particular period and whereas the services of the appointees were to be governed more particularly as per the conditions mentioned in the said order. (a) It is submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta that as per Clause-20 of the said order, the employee concerned would be entitled to resign and whereas the employee could either give a notice of one month or notice pay for the said period and whereas the clause also states with regard to the employee requiring to pay the bond amount. It is submitted by learned senior advocate that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 27.10.2022 and whereas vide communication dated 28.10.2022 it was informed by the respondent corporation that the resignation of the petitioner could be accepted upon the petitioner complying with certain conditions mentioned in the appointment order more particularly the petitioner being required to comply with condition nos. 19 and 20 i.e. of repaying the bond amount as well as of depositing one month notice pay. (b) It is submitted by learned senior advocate that the petitioner had deposited the bond as well as the basic pay amount with the Corporation vide Challan on the very date i.e. on 28.10.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner had also submitted a communication requesting the respondents to take back the sim card which the petitioner had been allotted. Learned senior advocate would submit that as against the same, vide communication dated 22.11.2022, the respondent Corporation had rejected the request of the present petitioner for resigning from service more particularly on the ground that a vigilance inquiry is pending against the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had been issued with a show cause notice dated 24.08.2023 referred to herein above prompting the petitioner to approach this Court. (c) Learned senior advocate would submit that as per Clause 20 of the appointment order, upon the petitioner paying notice pay for one month, the resignation should be deemed to have been accepted more particularly according to learned senior advocate, Clause 20 itself provides that the employee could have the period of one month waived upon depositing the notice pay. (c) Learned senior advocate would submit that as per Clause 20 of the appointment order, upon the petitioner paying notice pay for one month, the resignation should be deemed to have been accepted more particularly according to learned senior advocate, Clause 20 itself provides that the employee could have the period of one month waived upon depositing the notice pay. Learned senior advocate would further submit that the respondents having directed the petitioner to comply amongst others with Clause 19 and 20 of the appointment order and the petitioner having complied with the same, the respondents were not empowered to reject the application of the petitioner for resignation. (d) Learned senior advocate would also provide a copy of the duty book of the fire and emergency services of the corporation more particularly there being an endorsement at 17:35 hours on 28.10.2022 of the CFO having accepted the resignation and relieved the petitioner. Learned senior advocate would submit that under such circumstances, the resignation having been accepted and the petitioner being relieved, the respondents were not empowered to issue communication dated 22.11.2022 more particularly of rejecting the request of the applicant for resigning from service. (e) Learned senior advocate would thus submit that while the respondent Corporation may or may not be empowered to hold departmental proceedings against the present petitioner after the petitioner resigns from service, but, looking to the fact situation, the petitioner being entitled to resign from service and whereas upon fulfillment of certain conditions, the resignation being required to be accepted and from the documents since it appears that the respondents had accepted the resignation and relieved the present petitioner from service, the later action of the respondents pale into insignificance and whereas, it is requested that this Court may declare that the resignation of the petitioner having become final, the order dated 22.11.2022 is nonest. (B) This petition is vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu on behalf of the respondent – Corporation. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu would submit that the petitioner is attempting to interpret Clause 20 much more broadly then the clause itself envisages. Learned advocate would submit that while the petitioner may have submitted a resignation to the respondent corporation, but, the fact remains that the respondent Corporation had to accept/approve the resignation of the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu would submit that the petitioner is attempting to interpret Clause 20 much more broadly then the clause itself envisages. Learned advocate would submit that while the petitioner may have submitted a resignation to the respondent corporation, but, the fact remains that the respondent Corporation had to accept/approve the resignation of the present petitioner. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner having deposited the bond amount as well as the notice pay amount, completes a procedure and whereas even after such a procedure is completed, it was open for the respondent Corporation to have decided whether the resignation of the petitioner is to be approved or not. (a) Learned advocate Mr.Naidu would further submit that insofar as the logbook is concerned, the same merely records that the CFO had approved the resignation of the present petitioner and whereas it is submitted that the CFO was not the competent authority to have approved the resignation. It is submitted that the logbook is just a log of the events which had happened and whereas such an endorsement in the logbook would not entitle the petitioner to claim that his resignation had been accepted. (b) Learned advocate Mr.Naidu would submit that the appointing authority being the Municipal Commissioner, it would be the same authority which would be competent to accept the resignation of the present petitioner and whereas merely on account of some endorsement in the logbook, it could not be said that the resignation of the petitioner had been approved. As a matter of fact, learned advocate Mr.Naidu would submit that while the petitioner had complied the procedure, upon scrutinizing the material, it had come to the notice of the competent authority that there was a vigilance inquiry against the present petitioner and whereas, it is under such circumstances that communication dated 22.11.2022 had been issued whereby, referring to the vigilance inquiry, the request of the present petitioner for resignation had been rejected. (c) Learned advocate Mr.Naidu would also rely upon Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 and would submit that the Rules itself envisage that the resignation of a government employee shall be effective from the date on which it is accepted by the appointing authority and if it is not accepted before the expiry of the period of notice for resignation given by such employee under sub-rule (1), it would be deemed to have been effective on the date of expiry of such period, unless, the government employee is informed before such date that his resignation has been rejected and of the reasons of such rejection. (d) Learned advocate Mr.Naidu would submit that the present applicant having submitted his resignation on 27.10.2022 and whereas since the appointment order envisages notice of 30 days and whereas, the respondent Corporation vide communication dated 22.11.2022 having rejected the request for resignation more particularly with reasons i.e. on account of the vigilance inquiry, the rejection of resignation is completely in accordance with law and whereas, this Court may not interfere in the present petition. (C) Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner as well as learned advocate Mr.Naidu on behalf of the respondent – Corporation. (D) The only issue that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the resignation of the petitioner being rejected by the respondent vide communication dated 22.11.2022 was sustainable in law or not. (a) It would appear that while the petitioner had been appointed in the services of the respondent Corporation vide order dated 28.05.2019 and whereas it would appear that the appointment was for a fixed tenure for a fixed pay and whereas Clause 20 of the appointment order which is being relied upon heavily by learned senior advocate, the is reproduced as under:- “Condition no.20: “An employee on contractual basis on fixed pay can voluntary resign from his employment during the contractual period either by giving one month’s notice or after the said resignation is accepted but the said employee must deposit the bond amount with the municipal corporation.”” (b) It would appear that the petitioner had after giving the letter of resignation on 27.10.2022, upon being informed in addition to depositing the bond amount, had also deposited the one month notice pay. The question being that whether by virtue of the employee depositing the notice pay, could the employee claim that the resignation would be effective from the date of deposit or whether the clause or the general conditions envisage that the employer is required to approve the resignation. (c) In the considered opinion of this Court, Clause 20 as well as the general conditions i.e. Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 both envisage a situation where the employer i.e. the appointing authority is required to approve/accept the resignation of the employee. A perusal of Clause 20 as reproduced herein above would show that the said clause permits the employee to voluntarily resign by giving one month’s notice or after the resignation is accepted. The said clause could only be read to mean that the resignation of the employee would be effective after a period of one month if no action is taken thereupon by the Corporation or the resignation would become effective if it is accepted by the Corporation before the completion of the one month period. It clearly appears that Clause 20 is in tune with Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002, which envisages the same situation but the position being clarified in a better way. Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “36 Resignation from Government service: (1) A Government employee may at any time resign from the services of the State by giving a notice of one month in writing to the appointing authority. Provided that in the case of a temporary employee who has put in service of less than one year, the period of such notice shall be one week. Note: Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of any special contract of service or bond entered into by the Government employee with the Government, or the provisions of any special rules, if any, applicable to him, in respect of the period of notice to be given for resignation from service or payment of any sum by the Government employee, to the Government for premature resignation by him. (2) The resignation tendered by a Government employee shall be effective from the date on which it is accepted by the appointing authority; but if it is not accepted before the expiry of the period of notice for resignation to be given by such employee under sub-rule (1), it shall be deemed to have become effective on the date of the expiry of such period, unless the Government employee is informed before such date, that his resignation has been rejected and of the reasons for such rejection: Provided that the resignation of a Government employee shall not be rejected except in a case where - (a) any ascertained or ascertainable amount of money is found outstanding against him and payment thereof is not made by him within the period mentioned above, (b) he is under suspension, (c) any departmental inquiry or criminal prosecution is contemplated or pending against him. (3) A Government employee shall not be relieved from his office, if his resignation is rejected. (4) Where a Government employee remains absent from duty before his resignation has become effective or if his resignation has been rejected without prior grant of leave for such absence, it shall be lawful for the competent authority to treat his absence as leave without pay and to take disciplinary action against him for unauthorised absence from duty. (5) Any notice of resignation from service shall not be permitted to be withdrawn after the resignation has become effective, except on exceptional ground or in public interest. (6) Where the temporary Government employee has put in service for a period exceeding one year, the period of such notice shall be one month and where such Government employee has put in service for one year or any period less than one year the period of such notice shall be one week. Provided that the service of any such Government employee may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing pay and allowances immediately before the termination of his service, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the notice period. (7) Where a notice is given by the authority other than Government terminating the services of a temporary Government employee or where the services of any such Government employee is terminated by an authority other than the Government either on the expiry of the period of such notice or forthwith by payment of pay plus allowances, the Government may, of its own motion or otherwise reopen the case and after calling of the records of the case and after making such inquiry as it deemed fit - (i) confirm the action taken by the authority; (ii) withdraw the notice; (iii) re-instate the Government employee in service, or (iv) make such other order in the case as it may consider proper. Provided that except in special circumstances, which shall be recorded in writing, no case shall be reopened under this sub-rule after the expiry of three months. (i) from the date of notice in case where notice is given; (ii) from the date of termination of service, in a case where no notice is given. (8) Where a Government employee is re-instated in service under sub-rule-(7), the order of re-instatement shall specify – (i) the amount or proportion of pay and allowance, if any, to be paid to the Government employee for the period of his absence between the date of termination of his service and the date of his reinstatement; and (ii) whether the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty for any specified purpose or purposes.” (d) Rule 36 as could be clearly discernible states that the resignation tendered by a government employee shall be effective from the date on which it is accepted by the appointing authority (or after the said resignation is accepted as per Clause 20) but, if it is not accepted before the expiry of the period of notice for resignation to be given by such employee, it shall be deemed to have become effective after the date of expiry of such period (by giving one month’s notice again as per Clause 20). (e) While Rule 36 inter alia further envisages that the State is empowered to reject the resignation and inform the employee the reasons for such resignation before the date of expiry of such period and whereas, while such specific words are not found in Clause 20 but the fact of Clause 20 inter alia containing the words “resignation is accepted” clearly envisages the power to the Corporation to even reject the resignation. (f) In the instant case, the respondent Corporation having rejected the application for resignation by the petitioner before completion of 30 days, more particularly the said order also stating the reason for such resignation not being accepted, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said order is in line with the power envisaged with the Corporation under Clause 20 read with the power envisaged with the State Government under Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner not being able to make out a case against rejection of resignation, the prayer with regard to quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 22.11.2022 i.e. a communication whereby the resignation is rejected, is hereby rejected. Common order in all the four petitions:- 5. Insofar as show cause notices are concerned, which are challenged in all the four petitions, the following directions are passed which shall be common to all the four petitions:- (i) The respondent – Corporation to take appropriate steps in accordance with Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 in furtherance of the show cause notices dated 24.08.2023. (ii) The departmental inquiry, which shall be conducted by the respondents, shall be strictly in accordance with the Rule referred to herein above. (iii) The departmental inquiry shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and whereas, the petitioners shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings and whereas, the petitioners shall not seek any adjournment. (iv) It is clarified that the respondent – Corporation shall grant appropriate /adequate opportunity to the petitioners as envisaged in Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and where at any stage if no time limit is stipulated in the Rules then reasonable opportunity shall be granted at that stage. (iv) It is clarified that the respondent – Corporation shall grant appropriate /adequate opportunity to the petitioners as envisaged in Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and where at any stage if no time limit is stipulated in the Rules then reasonable opportunity shall be granted at that stage. (v) It is clarified that insofar as show cause notices are concerned, this Court has not opined anything on merits. All rights and contentions of all the parties are left open to be agitated before appropriate forum. 6. With these observations and directions, the present petitions stand disposed of. Direct service is permitted.