RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case admit of being stated in a very narrow compass. In May, 1963 the petitioner, who was then working as a Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Agriculture and Animal Husbandary Department as well as in irrigation and Power Departments, was promoted to the Selection Grade of the Indian Administrative Service and transferred to Kotah as Collector and District Magistrate. On 21st August, 1964 he addressed a letter to the Chief Minister Rajasthan, (annexure A to the petition) pointing out inter aha various circumstances because of which he found it extremely difficult to carry on with his work. On 30th August, 1964, he addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan which was as. under:-

(2.) The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the resignation having been withdrawn by the petitioner before its acceptance was communicated to him, the acceptance was of no consequence and did not have the effect of putting an end to the petitioner's employment. The petitioner, therefore, asks for the quashing of the order accepting his resignation. He also prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to prevent him from performing the duties as Collector and District Magistrate. It may be pointed out that it was on 29th March, 1964, that the State of Rajasthan wrote to the petitioner that "the resignation from the Indian Administrative Service tendered by Shri Raj Kumar, Collector and District Magistrate, Kotah, has been accepted by the Government of India." The short question that we have been called upon to decide, therefore, is whether the acceptance of resignation was legal and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) Mr. N. C. Chaterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (a) the resignation did not become effective till it was accepted and the acceptance communicated to the petitioner and (b) the resigation having been withdrawn on 27th November, 1964, that is, before the communiation of its acceptance there was no resignation on which the respondents could act. The learned counsel has in support of these propositions relied on Jai Ram v. Union of India, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, Bahori Lal Paliwal v. District Magistrate Bulandshahr another, and Sankar Dutt Shukia v. President Municipal Board, Auraiya and another.