JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief : “22(a). This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20/12/2007 passed by Director of Technical Education, Gujarat State, and further directing the respondent – State and respondent No.2 to accept the representation dated 07/06/2004 and 26/07/2004 (Annexure-N) and treat the petitioner as having been “voluntarily retired” and grant the petitioner all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits, further direct the respondent No.2 authority to release amount of arrears towards pension from 07/06/2004 till today and also the amount of gratuity as well as other consequential benefits subsequent to retirement.” 2. FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER: 2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Tracer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Surat w.e.f. 02/01/1978 and again she was appointed at Technical Assistant in the same office, Canal Division Surat w.e.f. 21/3/1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Architecture, Govt. Polytechnic College for Girls, Surat – respondent No.2 on 01/01/1982 and thus, the service of the petitioner as a Lecturer commenced from 01/01/1982. 2.2. The petitioner went on leave from 19/5/1994 to 25/08/1994 for the purpose of visiting abroad – Canada to see her sister. This was first visit of the petitioner to foreign country and she resumed her duty in time i.e. on 26/08/1994 after returning from abroad. 2.3. The petitioner again went on leave from 01/02/2001 to 19/04/2001 for the purpose of going abroad and resumed duty in time on 20/04/2001. 2.4. This was first visit of the petitioner to foreign country and she resumed her duty in time i.e. on 26/08/1994 after returning from abroad. 2.3. The petitioner again went on leave from 01/02/2001 to 19/04/2001 for the purpose of going abroad and resumed duty in time on 20/04/2001. 2.4. It is the case of the petitioner that since her sister living in Canada was not keeping well, the petitioner again was required to go to Canada to see her sister and for that purpose, the petitioner made declaration along with an application for obtaining No Objection Certificate for the purpose of leave in her college stating that the petitioner was supposed to go abroad and in the event if the petitioner fails to resume duties as Lecturer in the Department of Architecture, immediately after the expiry of the period of leave, that might be granted to the petitioner, as per the declaration, that may be considered as resignation of the petitioner from service of Govt. of Gujarat, and in that case, the Government may proceed further as if, the petitioner has resigned from service of the Government. 2.5. On 17/2/2003, the petitioner again made an application along with separate reminder for obtaining No Objection Certificate for the purpose of going abroad. Thereafter, again the petitioner appraised the Principal Govt. Polytechnic College Surat about her tour to Canada to begin on 08/06/2003, anticipating receipt of No Objection Certificate. 2.6. It is the case of the petitioner that after reaching Canada, the petitioner’s health deteriorated and she sustained severe back pain on account of sciatica. Therefore, the petitioner immediately informed the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic College, Surat – respondent No.2 with respect to her ill-health by correspondence dated 07/09/2003. In response to that the petitioner received communication dated 25/09/2003 from the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic College, Surat – respondent No.2 informing that prior applications of the petitioner for obtaining No Objection Certificate was granted and her leave was sanctioned upto 15/09/2003 and it was stated that the students were suffering a lot on account of absence of the petitioner - Lecturer and the petitioner was asked to resume forthwith. 2.7. Polytechnic College, Surat – respondent No.2 informing that prior applications of the petitioner for obtaining No Objection Certificate was granted and her leave was sanctioned upto 15/09/2003 and it was stated that the students were suffering a lot on account of absence of the petitioner - Lecturer and the petitioner was asked to resume forthwith. 2.7. The petitioner, therefore, again informed the respondent No.2 expressing regret about her difficulties being faced by the students and staff members of Architecture Department of College but also informed that she was not in a position to return from Canada on account of severe back pain. In view of this, the respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to send Medical Certificate with respect to her illness and further apprised the petitioner that it would be proceeded further with respect to additional leave only after he having received the medical certificate, by communication dated 19/12/2003. Therefore, again the petitioner expressed her inability to return from Canada on account of her illness, but sent the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Charles J. Smith along with correspondence dated 20/1/2004. 2.8. Thereafter the respondent No.2 by notice dated 23/24-3-2004 warned the petitioner of disciplinary action in case of the petitioner failing to resume forthwith. All the communications were sent and forwarded to Canada through post and therefore, they were received by the petitioner after a long gap of about 3 to 4 weeks. Thereafter, again desperately the petitioner expressed her inability to resume service for the same reason i.e. ill-health by correspondence dated 09/04/2004. The petitioner also regretted and reminded that she was always available to perform her duty with respect to elections in past and making it clear that she went on leave long back, even before the Declaration of date of election and Code of Conduct. 2.9. According to the petitioner, she was served with a notice dated 19/04/2004 by Joint Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar warning to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with para 3 of the Circular dated 13/02/2002 issued by the Department of Education, Government of Gujarat, if the petitioner fails to resume service within 7 days of the date of receipt of the said notice. It is the case of the petitioner that, however, copy of the said circular was not provided to the petitioner and therefore, it was very difficult for the petitioner to reply to the said notice in its proper perspective without having a vital document. It is the case of the petitioner that therefore, the action based upon such vague and discriminatory proceedings, suffers from non-application of mind and was in violation of principles of natural justice. 2.10. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner immediately replied through correspondence and E-mail, dated 29/04/2004 requested the Jt. Director, Technical Education Board to permit her to join the term commencing immediately after the summer vacation. It was informed that now then the petitioner was recovering from her illness. 2.11. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner smelled the conspiracy against her and apprehending dire consequences, the petitioner changed her mind and withdrew the resignation she made as per Declaration of year 2002 and applied to avail voluntary retirement scheme by filling up requisite information in Cyclostyle Form sending it to the Director, Office of the Director, Technical Education, Gandhinagar along with an undertaking stating that the petitioner would not withdraw from the stand and aforesaid application seeking voluntary retirement, under any circumstances. 2.12. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner continued with her stand and submitted one more such application seeking voluntary retirement rectifying the date mentioned in the last application dated 07/06/2004 mentioned in the last paragraph of the application dated 07/06/2004, 07/09/2004 instead of 07/07/2004. The said subsequent attempt was made as the petitioner was advised to give 3 months’ notice prior to the date of application seeking voluntary retirement. 2.13. It is the case of the petitioner that being stunned by her application seeking voluntary retirement, the Joint Director, Technical Education Board woke up from the slumber and immediately issued a show cause notice dated 26/6/2004 upon the petitioner as to why not to accept the resignation of the petitioner as per the proposal in No Objection Certificate dated 4/7/2003. It is the case of the petitioner that being stunned by her application seeking voluntary retirement, the Joint Director, Technical Education Board woke up from the slumber and immediately issued a show cause notice dated 26/6/2004 upon the petitioner as to why not to accept the resignation of the petitioner as per the proposal in No Objection Certificate dated 4/7/2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice mentions No Objection Certificate dated 04/07/2003 was never received by the petitioner and the petitioner was not in knowledge of the said No Objection Certificate, still, however, the petitioner assumes that No Objection Certificate to go abroad was granted on 04/07/2003. Nothing was mentioned with respect to the applications seeking voluntary retirement given by the petitioner for which otherwise the petitioner was entitled to. 2.14. The petitioner vide reply dated 24/09/2004 requested the authorities to accept the application seeking voluntary retirement and further requested to consider the date of voluntary retirement, immediately after the expiry of period of leave originally sanctioned upto 15/09/2003. There was mistake in the reply and instead of “voluntary retirement”, resignation was mentioned and therefore, the petitioner again by one more correspondence dated 29/11/2004, brought to the notice of the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education the fact that by mistake the petitioner had mentioned “resignation” instead of voluntary retirement”. Copy of the correspondence was also sent to the Joint Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar. 2.15. The petitioner states that, as a matter of fact, the health of the petitioner was not keeping well and deteriorated further in the year 2004-05, and the petitioner’s hope to recover earlier came out to be a nightmare, and as such, in the year of Year 2005, the petitioner recovered reasonably and was permitted to travel by the competent doctor. As such, during interregnum period, the petitioner was positively hoping that, his application seeking voluntary retirement should have been granted. The petitioner states that, she returned from Canada in the year 2006, and after returning to India, the petitioner immediately inquired about the status of her applications seeking voluntary retirement with the staff of college as well as officers of Deptt. of Education. The petitioner came to know that, as no decision was arrived by the competent authorities with respect to her application seeking voluntary retirement, she immediately, by correspondence dated 07/02/2006, requested Addl. of Education. The petitioner came to know that, as no decision was arrived by the competent authorities with respect to her application seeking voluntary retirement, she immediately, by correspondence dated 07/02/2006, requested Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education to do the needful with respect to petitioner’s representations seeking voluntary retirement. Copy of the said correspondence was also forwarded to the Jt. Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar. 2.16. That by an order dated 21/03/2006, Prof. R. J. Joshi, on behalf of Commissioner, Technical Education, Gandhinagar, informed the petitioner that, as per reference to in the said order (Resolution No H.C.T./1097/ 181/GH, dated 23/04/1998), the resignation of petitioner was accepted as per her original declaration of year 2002/5-4-2003 with retrospective effect from the date 01-05-2003. However, in this order, there was no reference made in respect to representations made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement, and also by that, the petitioner withdraw her resignation made in the original declaration of year 2002/ 5-4-2003. The resolution mentioned in this Order on which the Commissioner, Technical Education Board relied, to accept the resignation of the petitioner as per the original Declaration, is not supplied and furnished to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, therefore also, the order dated 21/03/2006 suffers from the vice of non-furnishing of vital material and document, and hence, this order also blatantly violates the principles of natural justice as no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by not complying and/or furnishing very vital material. That the resignation made by the petitioner in original Declaration dated 05/04/2003 was never accepted so far till 21/03/2006, and the petitioner already changed her mind to withdraw the said resignation and opted for voluntary retirement by making two successive representations dated 07/06/2004 and 26/07/2004. According to the petitioner, still however, she again requested Commissioner, Technical Education Board, by her correspondence dated 17/04/2006 to consider her case sympathetically, and more particularly, considering petitioner’s punctuality in the service of 27 years and stigma free career. It was also requested to consider at her unavoidable circumstances occurred due to severe illness of back pain. 2.17. According to the petitioner since there was no response to her last communication dated 17/04/2006 for a long period, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No 27514/07. It was also requested to consider at her unavoidable circumstances occurred due to severe illness of back pain. 2.17. According to the petitioner since there was no response to her last communication dated 17/04/2006 for a long period, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No 27514/07. As a result of this, the petitioner sought permission to re-approach the respondent authority by submitting a detailed representation, which was granted by this Court and during the course of hearing of the petition, the petitioner relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India reported in Ms. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 1808 . Therefore, this court, vide order dated 25/10/2007 directed the petitioner to supply the copy of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court along with representation, and further directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation and examine the same, and to pass appropriate decision in accordance with the law, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of such representation. This Hon’ble Court was also pleased to grant liberty upon the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum in case of the decision of respondent authority is adverse to the petitioner. 2.18. It is the case of the petitioner that, after obtaining the order from this Court, the petitioner immediately approached the Respondent No 1 along with requisite representation and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur (supra). Thereafter, the petitioner received an order dated 20/12/2007 passed by Respondent No.1 - Director of Technical Education Board, Gujarat State, confirming the order dated 21/03/2006 passed by the then Commissioner, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar, and rejected the representation made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the ground on which the representation came to be rejected are absolutely flimsy grounds. 2.19. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 3.1. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing with Ms. 2.19. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 3.1. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing with Ms. Srushti Thula, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the main grievance of the respondent authority was with respect to the absence of the petitioner when she was at abroad and suffering from illness. It was also informed by the authorities that, the students of the Architecture Faculties are suffering on account of absence of petitioner with respect to their education. It appears that the said grievance was baseless and appear to have been made with malafide intention and/or oblique motive with a view to spoil the career of the petitioner, as till today the said post is vacant from the date on which the petitioner, resigned voluntarily. More particularly, in past also petitioner had gone to abroad, and returned in time and resumed duties on time. Therefore, there is no reason for the authorities to take such a harsh and punitive action against the petitioner, more particularly looking to the facts that petitioner was not in position to return and resume duties on account of severe illness and unavoidable circumstances. 3.2. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order dated 20/10/2007 indicates about the correspondence dated 24/09/2007 wherein the petitioner, by mistake, stated ‘resignation’ instead of ‘voluntarily retired’. But as soon as the said mistake came to the notice of the petitioner, she immediately rectified the said mistake by correspondence dated 29/11/2004, and in terms pointed out that the petitioner mentions the word ‘resignation’ by mistake instead of ‘voluntarily retired’. The conduct of Respondent No. 1 reflects in the order wherein, deliberately and miserably the Respondent No. 1 authority failed to mention the subsequent correspondence made by the petitioner rectifying the mistake. It is submitted that therefore, the order impugned suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, arbitrariness, malafide and appears to have been passed with an oblique motive and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and requires to be quashed and set aside forthwith. 3.3. Mr. It is submitted that therefore, the order impugned suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, arbitrariness, malafide and appears to have been passed with an oblique motive and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and requires to be quashed and set aside forthwith. 3.3. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that while passing first order dated 21/03/2006 rejecting the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the authority relied on certain vital documents including Resolution No. HCT/1097/181/GH, dated 23-04-1998, however, none of the documents was furnished upon the petitioner. So much so, in the subsequent impugned order dated 20/12/2007, the Respondent No. 1 relied on some documents which was also not supplied to the petitioner, more particularly, the impugned order mentions about some inquiry initiated against the petitioner based on some confidential correspondence dated 1/2/20005 vide No. GPT/ NRP/2004/G.4/ 153, and by virtue of the said correspondence, appointed Shri H. S. Patel, Principal of Gandhi College, Surat as Inquiry Officer, asked him to submit his opinion within 10 days after making a detailed inquiry of the case. It is submitted that the impugned order also mentions that, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15/03/2005 before the concerned office. The impugned order also mentions that, as per the said inquiry report, the allegations against the petitioner were proved partly. It is submitted that, no inquiry could have been initiated without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was not in India at that relevant point of time, so much so the petitioner was never apprised about the said inquiry by the respondent authorities. So much so, it is for the first time that, the petitioner as come to know about the knowledge about the so called inquiry. Moreover, the respondent authorities have failed to supply the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer before passing the first order dated 21/03/2006. It is submitted that therefore, the entire exercise carried out by the concerned authorities of the respondent passing two orders rejecting the application of the petitioner of voluntary retirement, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, against the principles of natural justice and without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. It is submitted that therefore, the entire exercise carried out by the concerned authorities of the respondent passing two orders rejecting the application of the petitioner of voluntary retirement, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, against the principles of natural justice and without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, malafide, non-application of mind, violating the provisions of Constitution of India, and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. 3.4. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that when she approached this Court, the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., (supra) and this Court permitted the petitioner to approach the authority specifically directing the petitioner to supply the copy of the said judgment along with representation, dated 05/11/2007. It is submitted that this Court also impliedly directed the respondent authority to consider the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the a representation of the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent authority had deliberately brushed aside the very important aspect of the matter by defying the law of the land. It is submitted that in the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down the law and the general principles with regard to resignation and voluntary retirement that, ‘the resignation is not complete until it is accepted by the proper authority, and before such acceptance, an employee can change his mind and withdraw the resignation. But once the resignation is accepted, the contract comes to an end and the relationship of master and servant stands snapped.’ It is submitted that in the instant case, it is very apparent that the petitioner changed her mind way back and withdrew her resignation by virtue of her first representation dated 07/06/2004 whereby the petitioner categorically expressed her desire to consider her case under the voluntary retirement scheme and not to accept her resignation as per petitioner’s original declaration. The petitioner states that, the respondent authority deliberately, intentionally and willfully ignored the said submission of the petitioner which is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner states that, the respondent authority deliberately, intentionally and willfully ignored the said submission of the petitioner which is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that therefore, the respondent authority, while passing the impugned order has, deliberately, intentionally and willfully ignored the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereby, committed contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that therefore the impugned order is illegal and against the settled principles of law, and therefore, it suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, malafide and requires to be quashed and set aside. 3.5. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner's leave was sanctioned till 15/09/2003 and her resignation was accepted w.e.f from 01/05/2003, and hence, the absence of the petitioner was covered by sanctioned leave, and it is during that period that the petitioner’s resignation was accepted, which is illegal and dchors the provisions of Law and Natural Justice. 3.6. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that conditional resignation given as a compulsion in 2002 cannot be accepted after the petitioner had given an application for Voluntary Retirement in 2004, which is, after the completion of more than 25 years of unblemished continuous service. 3.7. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no provision for any Conditional Resignation. It is submitted that the only resignation that the Rules provide for is under Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Service Rules (Rule 33-A of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959). It is submitted that the conditional format is not recognized in law and cannot be treated as Resignation, especially as the leave was sanctioned till 15.09.2003 and the petitioner had applied for Voluntary Retirement before the illegal and void Resignation was accepted by the respondent authorities. 3.8. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the application for Voluntary Retirement was never rejected by the Respondent authorities and Rule 49 of the Gujarat Civil Services [Pension] Rules, 2002 explicitly stipulates that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. It is submitted that the as per the Rules, the Voluntary Retirement application is deemed to have been accepted and the orders orders dtd. 21/03/2006 and 20/12/2007 are bad and illegal and need to be quashed and set aside. 3.9. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that as per Rule 25 of the aforementioned Rules if the employee has been working in different departments with the Same employer (Government) it would be considered as continuous service for the purpose of calculation of pension and Gratuity. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in 1977 with the same employer as Tracer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Surat and in 1980 the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in Canal Division, Surat and in 1982 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Architecture, Government Polytechnic College for Girls, Surat. It is submitted that thus, the services of the petitioner have remained uninterrupted with the same employer, since 1977 and hence for the purpose of computation of the Qualifying services for pensionary and other benefits as per Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules. It is submitted that Rule 42 puts the burden/onus on the authority to complete the procedure regarding qualifying services after any employee completes 20 years in the service. That till the time the petitioner had given her application for Voluntary retirement, no inquiry/proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and it was only after the Voluntary Retirement application was received by the respondent, a show cause notice was issued. However, even pursuant to the Show cause notice, there has been no formal inquiry, wherein the petitioner had been heard. 3.10. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had put the orders of previous appointments being 1977 and 1980 on record. However, in reply to the same, the State has come up with a document which shows that her services from 1977 were considered for the purpose of leave. It is stated that this strengthens the case of the petitioner which was that her services should be considered to be continuous as per 9(68) and Rule 25 read together. 3.11. Mr. However, in reply to the same, the State has come up with a document which shows that her services from 1977 were considered for the purpose of leave. It is stated that this strengthens the case of the petitioner which was that her services should be considered to be continuous as per 9(68) and Rule 25 read together. 3.11. Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has also relied on Rule 25, Rule 36 and Rule 48 to 50 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules. 3.12. Mr.Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions : 1. 2000 (4) SCC 3019 (Para 6, 7 & 8) (D.V. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat); 2. 2000 (1) GLR 568 (Para 13) (Babubhai C. Zaveri Vs. District Health Officer Jilla Panchayat, Surat); 3. 1996 (2) GCD 16 (Guj) (UJ) (Para 5 & 6) (Yogesh Shivabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.) 4. 2018 SCC online Guj 623 (Para 6) (State of Gujarat Vs. Mahesh Keshavlal Joshi) 5. 2009 SCC Online Guj 6068/ (2009) 3 GLH 153 (Surya Kant Chimanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat) 6. 1986 GLH 725 (Mansukh A. Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat) 4. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS AGP: 4.1. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP has submitted that in fact the petitioner went on leave from 29/05/1994 to 25/08/1994 as per her report dated 26/08/1994 and again she went on leave from 01/2/2001 to 29/04/2001 as per her report dated 01/05/2001. It is further submitted that petitioner has already submitted Declaration dated 17/2/2003 in which it is clearly mentioned as she is working as Lecturer in Department of Architecture Department and she need to go abroad and she declared that if she fail to resume her duty as Lecturer in Architecture Department under the Government of Gujarat in Technical Education Department immediately after the expiry of the period of leave that may be granted to her and it was submitted that this declaration shall be considered as her resignation from Government Service and the Government may proceed further as if she has resigned from Government Service. It is submitted that as per above declaration the petitioner was knowing that if she fail to resume her duties immediately after the expiry of the period of leave that is granted to her, the declaration is to be considered as her resignation from Government Service. 4.2. It is submitted that as per above declaration the petitioner was knowing that if she fail to resume her duties immediately after the expiry of the period of leave that is granted to her, the declaration is to be considered as her resignation from Government Service. 4.2. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP has further submitted that petitioner vide letter dated 07/09/2003 asked for extension of leave from 15/09/2003 to 15/12/2003 due to her ill health, however, the respondent No.2 - Principal, Government Polytechnic for Girls, Surat vide his letter dated 25.09.2003 warned the petitioner that her leave was sanctioned upto 15/09/2003, and she must immediately report for the duty as the academic term was going on and students’ education was hampered due to her absence and she was warned to take a serious note that all the consequential responsibilities would be hers. It is submitted that however, the petitioner did not resume her duties till 07/06/2004 and she applied to avail the Voluntary retirement. 4.3. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP has further submitted that as per the letter of the Principal, Government Polytechnic for Girls, Surat vide letter dated 09/09/2004, the petitioner was present in the institute on 30/04/2003 and recommend 15 days half pay leave after vacation from 01/05/2003 to 25/06.2003 i.e. 56 days. However, the petitioner had not returned from abroad till 09/09/2004 and therefore the half pay leave after 25/06/2003 was not recommended. As per show cause notice by office of Directorate of Technical Education, Gandhinagar dated 26/08/2004 the petitioner was warned to join duty within seven days and if she failed to do so then she was also informed to explain why not to consider her resignation as mentioned in her Declaration submitted to the Principal for obtaining N.O.C. 4.4. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP has further submitted that as the petitioner was on unauthorized leave as per office order dated 26/08/2004 the remarks of the Principal were received that whether to sanction ‘Resignation’ as per the Declaration submitted or to sanction ‘Voluntary Retirement’ of the petitioner and with reference to it, the Principal vide his letter no. 1092 dated 09/09/2004 has recommended for her resignation as mentioned in her written declaration submitted for obtaining N.O.C. 4.5. Mr. 1092 dated 09/09/2004 has recommended for her resignation as mentioned in her written declaration submitted for obtaining N.O.C. 4.5. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP has further submitted that the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice issued by office of the Directorate of Technical Education, Gandhinagar dated 26/08/2004 by letter dated 24/09/2004 i.e., after the time limit and informed to sanction ‘Resignation’ from 07/06/2004. As the petitioner was on unauthorized leave and violated Gujarat State Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1971, it was decided to initiate preliminary investigations against her. The preliminary report was submitted to the Education Department vide office of Directorate of Technical Education, Gandhinagar letter no. 593 dated 08/04/2005 and Education Department vide letter dated 21/02/2006 informed that the petitioner had gone abroad from 01/05/2003 after getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ and had not returned till the date of this letter i.e. 21/02/2006, and hence as mentioned by her in Declaration submitted by her, if she did not resume the duty, then it is to be considered as resignation and ‘accordingly considering it ‘as her resignation, after necessary procedure it was informed to the Education Department, as per the powers vested to Directorate of Technical Education vide Education Department Circular No. SCT/1097/1081/GH dated 23/04/1998 and as per the instruction of Education Department, letter dated 21/02/2006, Directorate of Technical Education vide letter dated 21/03/2006, resignation of the petitioner, Lecturer in Architecture Assistantship, Government Polytechnic for Girls, Surat was sanctioned effective from 01.05.2003 after office hours. 4.6. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP has further submitted that the this Hon’ble Court passed order in SCA No.27514/2007 dated 25/10/2007 directing the respondent to make appropriate representation before the concern authority and further directed authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law within three month from receipt of the representation. It is submitted that after considering the representation of the petitioner, detailed reasoned order dated 20/12/2007 was passed by the Director of Technical Education, Gandhinagar. 5. Heard Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing with Ms. Srushti Thula, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP for the respondents – State at length and considered the material on record. 6. FINDINGS : 6.1. 5. Heard Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned senior advocate appearing with Ms. Srushti Thula, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP for the respondents – State at length and considered the material on record. 6. FINDINGS : 6.1. It is not in dispute that the the petitioner was appointed as Tracer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Surat w.e.f. 02/01/1978 and thereafter she was appointed at Technical Assistant in the same office, Canal Division Surat w.e.f. 21/3/1980 and thereafter, she was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Architecture, Govt. Polytechnic College for Girls, Surat – respondent No.2 on 01/01/1982 and the service of the petitioner as a Lecturer commenced from 01/01/1982. 6.2. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner went on leave from 19/5/1994 to 25/08/1994 for the purpose of visiting abroad and she resumed her duty in time on 26/08/1994 and thereafter she again went on leave from 01/02/2001 to 19/04/2001 for the purpose of going abroad and resumed duty in time on 20/04/2001. 6.3. It is an admitted fact that since the petitioner wanted to go abroad – Canada, she made Declaration along with an application for obtaining No Objection Certificate for the purpose of leave in her college stating that the petitioner was supposed to go abroad and in the event if the petitioner fails to resume duties as Lecturer in the Department of Architecture, immediately after the expiry of the period of leave, that might be granted to the petitioner, as per the declaration, that may be considered as resignation of the petitioner from service of Govt. of Gujarat, and in that case, the Government may proceed further as if, the petitioner has resigned from service of the Government. 6.4. The petitioner on 17/2/2003 again made an application along with separate reminder for obtaining No Objection Certificate for the purpose of going abroad. Thereafter, again the petitioner appraised the respondent No.2 about her tour to Canada to begin on 08/06/2003. 6.4. The petitioner on 17/2/2003 again made an application along with separate reminder for obtaining No Objection Certificate for the purpose of going abroad. Thereafter, again the petitioner appraised the respondent No.2 about her tour to Canada to begin on 08/06/2003. It is the case of the petitioner that after reaching Canada, the petitioner’s health deteriorated and she sustained severe back pain on account of sciatica and therefore, the petitioner informed the respondent No.2 with respect to her ill-health by correspondence dated 07/09/2003 and in response to that the petitioner received communication dated 25/09/2003 from the respondent No.2 informing that prior applications of the petitioner for obtaining No Objection Certificate was granted and her leave was sanctioned upto 15/09/2003 and it was stated that the students were suffering a lot on account of absence of the petitioner - Lecturer and the petitioner was asked to resume forthwith. 6.5. It has also come on record that the petitioner informed the respondent No.2 that she was not in a position to return from Canada on account of severe back pain. It appears that the respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to send Medical Certificate with respect to her illness and the petitioner that it would be proceeded further with respect to additional leave only after he having received the medical certificate and again the petitioner expressed her inability to return from Canada on account of her illness, but sent the Medical Certificate along with correspondence dated 20/1/2004. 6.6. It is pertinent to note that thereafter the respondent No.2 by notice dated 23/24-3-2004 warned the petitioner of disciplinary action in case of the petitioner failing to resume forthwith. Thereafter, the petitioner expressed her inability to resume service on account of ill-health for by correspondence dated 09/04/2004. 6.7. Notice dated 19/04/2004 was issued by Joint Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar to the petitioner warning to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with para 3 of the Circular dated 13/02/2002 issued by the Department of Education, Government of Gujarat, if the petitioner fails to resume service within 7 days of the date of receipt of the said notice. According to the petitioner copy of the said circular was not provided to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not reply the said notice in its proper perspective for want of vital document. 6.8. According to the petitioner copy of the said circular was not provided to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not reply the said notice in its proper perspective for want of vital document. 6.8. It appears that the petitioner replied vide correspondence dated 29/04/2004 requesting the Joint Director, Technical Education Board to permit her to join the term commencing immediately after the summer vacation. However, thereafter the petitioner changed her mind and withdrew the resignation she made as per Declaration of year 2002 and applied to avail voluntary retirement scheme in accordance with the required procedure and sent it to the Director, Office of the Director, Technical Education, Gandhinagar along with an undertaking stating that the petitioner would not withdraw from the stand and aforesaid application seeking voluntary retirement, under any circumstances. 6.9. It appears that the petitioner thereafter the petitioner submitted one more application seeking voluntary retirement rectifying the date. 6.10. It appears that thereafter the Joint Director, Technical Education Board issued a show cause notice dated 26/6/2004 upon the petitioner as to why not to accept the resignation of the petitioner as per the proposal in No Objection Certificate dated 4/7/2003. The petitioner vide reply dated 24/09/2004 requesting the authorities to accept the application seeking voluntary retirement and further requested to consider the date of voluntary retirement, immediately after the expiry of period of leave originally sanctioned upto 15/09/2003. There was mistake in the reply and instead of “voluntary retirement”, resignation was mentioned and therefore, the petitioner again by one more correspondence dated 29/11/2004, brought to the notice of the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education the fact that by mistake the petitioner had mentioned “resignation” instead of voluntary retirement”. Copy of the correspondence was also sent to the Joint Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar. 6.11. It appears that during the during the aforesaid interregnum period while the petitioner was abroad, the application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was not granted and even till 2006 when the petitioner returned from Canada, no decision was arrived by the competent authorities with respect to her application seeking voluntary retirement and it appears that therefore, the petitioner vide correspondence dated 07/02/2006, requested Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education to do the needful with respect to petitioner’s representations seeking voluntary retirement. Copy of the said correspondence was also forwarded to the Jt. Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar. 6.12. Chief Secretary, Department of Education to do the needful with respect to petitioner’s representations seeking voluntary retirement. Copy of the said correspondence was also forwarded to the Jt. Director, Technical Education Board, Gandhinagar. 6.12. It appears that by an order dated 21/03/2006, one Mr. R.J. Joshi, on behalf of Commissioner, Technical Education, Gandhinagar, informed the petitioner that the resignation of petitioner was accepted as per her original Declaration of year 2002/5-4-2003. 6.13. It appears that the resignation of the petitioner in original Declaration dated 05/04/2003 was not accepted till 21/03/2006, and in the meantime, the petitioner changed her mind and opted for voluntary retirement by making two representations dated 07/06/2004 and 26/07/2004. It appears that the petitioner again requested Commissioner, Technical Education Board, by her correspondence dated 17/04/2006 to consider her case sympathetically. 6.14. It appears that since there was response to the last communication of the petitioner dated 17/04/2006, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No 27514/07 and this Court, vide order dated 25/10/2007 permitted the petitioner to approach the respondent authority by submitting a detailed representation along with the copy of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Ms. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 1808 and the respondent authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and liberty was granted to approach the appropriate forum, in case any adverse order is passed by the authority. 6.15. It appears that thereafter pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner made a representation along with the copy of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur (supra). It appears that thereafter the respondent No.1 passed order dated 20/12/2007 confirming the order dated 21/03/2006. 6.16. It appears that the main grievance of the respondent authority was with respect to the absence of the petitioner when she was at abroad and suffering from illness. The respondent authority had informed the petitioner that the students of the Architecture Faculties are suffering on account of absence of petitioner with respect to their education. However, the said grievance is baseless as till today the said post is vacant from the date on which the petitioner, resigned voluntarily. 6.17. The respondent authority had informed the petitioner that the students of the Architecture Faculties are suffering on account of absence of petitioner with respect to their education. However, the said grievance is baseless as till today the said post is vacant from the date on which the petitioner, resigned voluntarily. 6.17. The impugned order dated 20/10/2007 indicates about the correspondence dated 24/09/2007 wherein the petitioner, by mistake, stated ‘resignation’ instead of ‘voluntarily retired’, and the respondent No.1 authority failed to mention subsequent correspondence dated 29/11/2004 rectifying the mistake and pointing out that the petitioner mentions the word ‘resignation’ by mistake instead of ‘voluntarily retired’. 6.18. In earlier round of litigation, this Court permitted petitioner to make representation to the concerned authority along with copy of the decision of the Ms. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has categorically laid down the law and the general principles with regard to resignation and voluntary retirement that, ‘the resignation is not complete until it is accepted by the proper authority, and before such acceptance, an employee can change his mind and withdraw the resignation. But once the resignation is accepted, the contract comes to an end and the relationship of master and servant stands snapped.’ It is submitted that in the instant case, it is very apparent that the petitioner changed her mind way back and withdrew her resignation by virtue of her first representation dated 07/06/2004 whereby the petitioner categorically expressed her desire to consider her case under the voluntary retirement scheme and not to accept her resignation as per petitioner’s original declaration. It is pertinent to note that the leave of the petitioner was sanctioned till 15/09/2003 and her resignation was accepted w.e.f from 01/05/2003, and hence, the absence of the petitioner was covered by sanctioned leave, and it is during that period that the petitioner’s resignation was accepted, which is illegal and de hors the provisions of law and settled legal position. 6.19. Even the conditional resignation given in 2002 cannot be accepted after the petitioner had given an application for Voluntary Retirement in 2004, which is, after and after the completion of more than 25 years of continuous service of the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no provision for any conditional resignation. 6.19. Even the conditional resignation given in 2002 cannot be accepted after the petitioner had given an application for Voluntary Retirement in 2004, which is, after and after the completion of more than 25 years of continuous service of the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no provision for any conditional resignation. Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Service Rules (Rule 33-A of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959) provides for resignation. The conditional resignation cannot be treated as resignation, when the leave of the petitioner was sanctioned till 15/09/2003 and the petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement before the resignation was accepted by the respondent authorities. 6.20. Even otherwise, the application of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement was never rejected by the Respondent authorities. It is pertinent to note that Rule 49 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 explicitly stipulates that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. As per the Rules, the voluntary retirement application is deemed to have been accepted and therefore, the orders orders dtd. 21/03/2006 and 20/12/2007 are bad and illegal and require to be quashed and set aside. 6.21. As per Rule 25 of the aforementioned Rules if the employee has been working in different departments with the Same employer (Government) it would be considered as continuous service for the purpose of calculation of pension and Gratuity. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed in 1977 as Tracer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Surat and in 1980 the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in Canal Division, Surat and in 1982 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Architecture, Government Polytechnic College for Girls, Surat and thus, the services of the petitioner have remained uninterrupted since 1977 and hence for the purpose of computation of the qualifying services for pensionary and other benefits as per Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules. Rule 42 puts the burden/onus on the authority to complete the procedure regarding qualifying services after any employee completes 20 years in the service. Rule 42 puts the burden/onus on the authority to complete the procedure regarding qualifying services after any employee completes 20 years in the service. That till the time the petitioner had given her application for voluntary retirement, no inquiry/proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and it was only after the voluntary retirement application was received by the respondent, a show cause notice was issued, however, even after issuance of the show cause notice, the inquiry was not proceeded further. Though the petitioner joined her service as Tracer in 1978 and thereafter as Technical Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Surat, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the respondent No.2 Department on 1/1/1982. No documentary evidence has been produced on record by the petitioner to show that her earlier service in the Drainage Division, Surat was joined with the present service as Lecturer with the respondent No.2. The earlier department where the petitioner served and the present department of the respondent No.2 where the petitioner served as Lecturer both are different departments. For treating both the service as continuous, the petitioner was required to make an application to the respondent No.2 for joining her earlier services and treat her earlier service as continuous. However, no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner that any application was made by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 for treating the services of the petitioner as continuous service and that the respondent No.2 processed such an application and passed order treating the services rendered by the petitioner in both the departments as continuous service. 6.22. The petitioner had put the orders of previous appointments being 1977 and 1980 on record and in reply to the same, the respondents – State has come up with a document which shows that her services from 1977 were considered for the purpose of leave only. No documents have been produced on record by the petitioner that the services of the petitioner from 1977 is termed to be continuous service for the purpose of pension and other benefits as per the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules. 6.23. Relevant Rules are Rule 48 to 50 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 reproduced hereinbelow. “Rule 48. Retirement on completion of twenty years’ qualifying service : (1) A Government employee on completion of twenty years’ qualifying service, may. 6.23. Relevant Rules are Rule 48 to 50 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 reproduced hereinbelow. “Rule 48. Retirement on completion of twenty years’ qualifying service : (1) A Government employee on completion of twenty years’ qualifying service, may. by giving notice of not less then three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority docs not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (3) The qualifying service as on the dais of indeed retirement of Government employee retiring under this rule shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government employee does not in any case exceed thirty years: Provided that the total qualifying service after allowing the increase under this sub-rule shall not exceed the qualifying service which the Government employees would have had, if he had retired voluntarily at the lowest age limit for voluntary retirement prescribed under sub rule (5) of rule 10. (4) (a) A Government employee referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons thereof; (b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the Head of Department in case of Class-IV employee and the Head of Administrative Department concerned in case of other employees, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that there is no departmental inquiry pending ; or contemplated against the Government employee, may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (5) A Government employee, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the notice to that effect as required under these rules to the appointing authority, shall not be allowed to withdraw such notice except with the approval of the appointing authority: Provided that the request for withdrawal of notice shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (6) The pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of the Government employee retiring under this rule shall be based on the pay as defined under rule-9 (53) read with rule-43 and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any notional fixation or addition of pay for the purposes of calculating pension and, gratuity. (7) This rule shall not apply to a Government employee who retires from Government service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. Explanation-1 : For the purpose of this rule the expression “appointing authority” shall mean the authority which is competent to make substantive appointment to the service or post from which the Government employee seeks voluntary retirement. Explanation-2 : Qualifying service of twenty years referred in sub rule (1) means qualifying service excluding the notional service added under sub-rule (3) and also extra ordinary leave sanctioned in the entire service of an employee.” 6.24. Rule 50 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 rules as under :- “Rule 50. General Conditions for voluntary retiring Government employees : (1) Before issuing the orders allowing a Government employee to retire voluntarily under rule 47 or 49, the appointing authority shall get the qualifying service put in by the Government employee verified by the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Gujarat State. (2) Except without permission from the Government, the Government employee who has retired voluntarily under rule 48 or 49 shall not be re-employed under any of the following : (i) State/Central Government Office, (ii) Municipal Corporation, (iii) Municipality, (iv) Panchayat, (v) Grant-in-aid institution (including colleges) in Gujarat. (2) Except without permission from the Government, the Government employee who has retired voluntarily under rule 48 or 49 shall not be re-employed under any of the following : (i) State/Central Government Office, (ii) Municipal Corporation, (iii) Municipality, (iv) Panchayat, (v) Grant-in-aid institution (including colleges) in Gujarat. (3) The voluntary retirement of the Lecturers of Government Colleges under rule-48 or 49 shall be subject to the following further conditions:- (i) The pension of the lecturer shall be fixed in two manners- (a) without benefits of rule 48 or 49 (as the case may be), and (b) with benefits of the said rules (as the case may be) with a condition in the Pension Payment Order that the extra benefits occurring under the rule 4S or 49 (as the case may be) shall be withdrawn if he joins any University or Institution affiliated to any University in Gujarat. (ii) All Universities/affiliated Institution to any University of the State shall intimate the Commissioner of Higher Education as and when they employ any retired college lecturer. (iii) On receipt of such intimation from the University/Institution, the Commissioner of Higher Education shall arrange to issue an order to the effect that the retired lecturer’s pension shall be permanently reduced and refixed at the lower amount. However, the pension drawn at higher rate before getting re-employed shall not be recovered. The concerned pension disbursing authority on receipt of such order from the Commissioner of Higher Education shall pay to the retired lecturer only such amount as mentioned in the order. (iv) During this re-employment the pay of the retired lecturers shall be fixed in accordance with rule-172 in Chapter-XVIII of these rules. (4) The employees retiring on voluntary basis shall be required to follow the above instructions scrupulously and breach of the same will be viewed seriously by the Government.” 6.25. Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension Rules) 2002 provides thus : “25. (4) The employees retiring on voluntary basis shall be required to follow the above instructions scrupulously and breach of the same will be viewed seriously by the Government.” 6.25. Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension Rules) 2002 provides thus : “25. Qualifying Service : Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government employee, means and includes - (i) all service including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous but it shall not include - (a) service in non-pensionable establishment, (b) service paid from contingences, (c) service rendered in daily rated establishment, (d) actual periods of break in service if any, between spell of service, (e) service prior to resignation, removal or dismissal, (f) service as an apprentice, (g) service on fixed pay basis, and (h) service on contract basis. (ii) all service rendered in work charged establishment provided that the total service put in, as such is five years or more, (iii) foreign service, (iv) vacation taken by Government employee in vacation department, (v) all periods of leave including extraordinary leave upto a maximum of thirty six months during entire service, (vi) addition to qualifying service admissible under rule-37, (vii) services rendered as Kotwal by a Government employee after regular appointment in the regular time scale. (viii) services rendered as full time attendant by a Government employee before his regular appointment in class IV service, and (ix) services rendered under Central Government/Central Government Autonomous bodies having pension scheme, by a Government employee who is absorbed in Government. (x) Pensionable service rendered by an employee in a grant-in-aid institution the pension liability in respect of which is borne by the Government to the extent as may be ordered by the Government from time to time.” 6.26. Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 reads thus :- “Rule 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. 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. (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. 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.” 6.27. In the case of D.V. Patel (supra), it is observed and held as under : “6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted his resignation on 12-9-1981 to the Director of Technical Education and he withdrew his resignation by his letter dated 16-12-1981 and requested to permit him to resume his duty. The Government passed the impugned order dated 16-5-1984 accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 7-10-1981. Thus, the petitioner withdrew his resignation prior to acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the appropriate authority. As such, the impugned order dated 16-5-1984 cannot be enforced and implemented. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prithvirajsingh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 1998 (3) GLR 1983 . I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 7. Now, two questions arise for consideration. (i) Whether the Government servant is entitled to withdraw his resignation before the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority ? (ii) Whether the resignation will be deemed to have been accepted after expiry of the date of notice? 8. Rule 33 (A) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959 deals with the controversy in question, which reads as under : “33-A (1) (a) A Government servant may at any time resign from the services of the State by giving a notice of one month in writing to the appointing authority. 8. Rule 33 (A) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959 deals with the controversy in question, which reads as under : “33-A (1) (a) A Government servant 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 servant who has put in service of less than one year, the period of such notice shall be one week. (b) Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of any special contract of service of bond entered into by the Government servant 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 for premature resignation by him. (2) The resignation tendered by a Government servant 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 servant under sub-rule (1) it shall be deemed to have become effect on the date of expiry of such period, unless the Government servant 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 shall not be rejected except in case where- (a) any ascertained or ascertained 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 enquiry or criminal prosecution is contemplated or pending against him. (3) A Government servant shall not be relieved from his office, if his resignation is rejected. (4) Where a Government servant 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 unauthorized absence from duty. (5) any notice of resignation from service shall not be permitted to be withdrawn after resignation has become effective except on exceptional ground or in public interest.” 6.28. (5) any notice of resignation from service shall not be permitted to be withdrawn after resignation has become effective except on exceptional ground or in public interest.” 6.28. In the case of Babuhai C. Zaveri (supra), this Hon’ble Court has observed and held as under :- “13. Now the question does not arise for consideration as to what relief is to be granted to the petitioner. It is at the most can be said to be the case where the petitioner remained absent from duty from 1/10/1976 to the date 16/11/1978, but the petitioner has not taken to be absent nor any disciplinary action has been taken against him by the respondents. So firstly the petitioner cannot be given any monetary benefits for this (his) absence period. However, in the facts of this case, the period aforesaid deserves to be counted towards qualifying service for benefits of pension etc. The petitioner has submitted an application on 16/11/1978 for voluntary retirement, though in substance may not be in form. He has to give three months notice. But voluntary retirement could have been accepted either by waiving the notice period and asking the petitioner to pay three months salary in lieu of the notice.” 6.29. In the case of Yogesh Shivabhai Patel (supra) this Court has observed and held as under :- “5. As a matter of fact, the petitioner’s application has been processed further and medical certificate with regard to the petitioner’s fitness had been requisitioned. The petitioner had produced necessary fitness certificate from the civil surgeon as can be seen from Annexure-G. In the facts of the case, therefore, it has to be found that before resignation came to be accepted after such a long time as 4 or 5 years, the petitioner had an occasion to withdraw his resignation as can be seen from the facts noted above. 6. It is well settled that an employee can withdraw his resignation at any time before he is actually relieved from his duties or at least before his resignation has been accepted. It is also so stated by the learned Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Ernakulam in K. Satheesan Vs. Deputy Director Geneeral. Marin Geology Division, Reported in 1990 (Volume 12), Administrative Tribunal Cases, at Page: 55, on a reference to the decisions in the case of Union of India Vs. It is also so stated by the learned Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Ernakulam in K. Satheesan Vs. Deputy Director Geneeral. Marin Geology Division, Reported in 1990 (Volume 12), Administrative Tribunal Cases, at Page: 55, on a reference to the decisions in the case of Union of India Vs. Gopalchandra Mishra, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301 , Jai Ram Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1954 SC 584 and Rajkumar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180 .” 6.30. In the case of Mahesh Keshavlal Joshi (supra) this Court has observed and held as under : “6.00. At this stage it is required to be noted that even no departmental inquiry was initiated against the original petitioner earlier. In any case, there was no decision on the application submitted by the original petitioner rejecting the said application for voluntary retirement on the ground that either department inquiry is pending or proposed to be initiated against the petitioner. As no decision was taken, considering Rule 49 and considering the deeded acceptance for voluntary retirement, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, which cannot be said to be contrary to Rule 49 of the Rules of 2002.” 6.31. In the case of Suryakant Chimanlal Patel (supra), this Court has observed and held as under :- “As we have held hereinabove, rule 47 of the Pension Rules does not confer power upon the appointing authority either to accept or to reject the application for voluntary retirement made by a Government servant after completion of 30 years' qualifying service. If at all the appointing authority had refused to permit the appellant to retire from service, the same was without the authority of law. Besides, this fact was not disclosed in the earlier affidavit filed in answer to the writ petition. The said communication dated 16th December, 2005 has not been placed on the record even now. As to the pending departmental inquiry, it appears that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the appellant at the relevant time. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in the month of November, 2006, long after the effective date of retirement. In our opinion, initiation of such departmental proceeding was also of no consequence. As to the pending departmental inquiry, it appears that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the appellant at the relevant time. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in the month of November, 2006, long after the effective date of retirement. In our opinion, initiation of such departmental proceeding was also of no consequence. If the relevant rules permit, the respondents may continue such disciplinary proceeding but cannot prevent the appellant from retiring from service as envisaged by rule 47 of the Pension Rules.” 6.32. In case of Mansukh A. Doshi (supra), this Court has observed and held as under :- “Rule 49 of the Pension Rules Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 inter alia, empowers a Government servant to retire from service voluntarily after completion of 25 years' qualifying service. Proviso thereto enjoins such employee to give a notice of atleast three months in writing to the appointing authority. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted application for voluntary retirement submitted by the appellant was in consonance with the above referred rule 49 of the Pension Rules. The appellant had completed 25 years' qualifying service and he had given notice of more than three months. On expiry the notice period, the petitioner would stand retired voluntarily. The right to voluntary retirement conferred upon a Government servant under rule 49 of the Pension Rules is absolute. In other words, the voluntary retirement under the said rule 49 is not dependent upon the wishes of the appointing authority. Rule 49 of the Pension Rules does not confer power upon the appointing authority either to accept or to reject the application for voluntary retirement made by a Government servant after completion of 25 years’ qualifying service. If at all the appointing authority had refused to permit the appellant to retire from service, the same was without the authority of law. As to the pending departmental inquiry, it appears that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner at the relevant point of time. In my opinion, initiation of such departmental proceeding, was also of no consequence. If the relevant rules permit, the respondents may continue such disciplinary proceeding but cannot prevent the appellant from retiring from service as envisaged by rule 49 of the Pension Rules.” 6.33. In my opinion, initiation of such departmental proceeding, was also of no consequence. If the relevant rules permit, the respondents may continue such disciplinary proceeding but cannot prevent the appellant from retiring from service as envisaged by rule 49 of the Pension Rules.” 6.33. Considering the facts of the case, in light of the aforesaid relevant provisions and decisions, it is clear that it is well settled position of law that an employee can withdraw his resignation at any time before he is actually relieved from his duties or at least before his resignation has been accepted. In the present case, as per Rule 48, the petitioner made application for voluntary retirement on completion of twenty years’ qualifying service and gave notice of three months in writing to the appointing authority for voluntary retirement. As per sub-clause (2), the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority, provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said notice period. In the present case, the petitioner after continuous service of 20 years has issued notice for voluntary retirement for 3 months to the appointing authority and the appointing authority has not refused to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the said notice period, and therefore, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said notice period. Thus, as per deeming provisions i.e. Proviso (2) of Rule 48, the voluntary retirement has become effective from the date of expiry of the notice period. On expiry the notice period, the petitioner would stand retired voluntarily. The right to voluntary retirement conferred upon a Government servant under rule 48 of the Pension Rules is absolute. In other words, the voluntary retirement under the said rule 48 is not dependent upon the wishes of the appointing authority. Rule 48 of the Pension Rules does not confer power upon the appointing authority either to accept or to reject the application for voluntary retirement made by a Government servant after completion of 20 years’ qualifying service. If at all the appointing authority had refused to permit the appellant to retire from service, the same was without the authority of law. If at all the appointing authority had refused to permit the appellant to retire from service, the same was without the authority of law. So far as departmental inquiry is concerned, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner at the relevant point of time and mere show cause notice was issued, which was replied by the petitioner. In any case, there was no decision on the application submitted by the petitioner rejecting the application for voluntary retirement on the ground that either department inquiry is pending or proposed to be initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, initiation of such departmental proceeding, would be of no consequence. If the relevant rules permit, the respondents may continue such disciplinary proceeding but cannot prevent the appellant from retiring from service as envisaged by rule 48 of the Pension Rules. 6.34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, when the application made by the petitioner after continuous service of 20 years for voluntary retirement and issued notice for voluntary retirement for 3 months to the appointing authority and the appointing authority has not refused to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the said notice period as per Proviso (2) of Rule 48, the voluntary retirement has become effective from the date of expiry of the notice period and on expiry the notice period, the petitioner would stand retired voluntarily. 7. In the result, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/12/2007 passed by Director of Technical Education, Gujarat State is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently, the applications dated 07/06/2004 and 26/07/2004 made by the petitioner for voluntary retirement stand allowed and the respondent No.2 hereby directed to treat the petitioner as having been “voluntarily retired” on expiry of notice period and grant the petitioner all consequential benefits subsequent to retirement. Rule is made absolute accordingly.