RAJ KUMAR ISHWAR DASS 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 Husbandry 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 21sl August. 1964 he addressed a letter to the Chief Minister, Rajasthan, (annexure A to the petition) pointing out inter alia 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 THE only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the resignation having been withdrawn by the petitioner before its acceptance was communicated to him the acceptance was of no consequence and did not have the effect of putting an end to the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 Kotab, 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effective till it was accepted and the acceptance communicated to the petitioner and (b) the resignation having been withdrawn on 27th November. 1964. that is before the communication 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, AIR 1954 SC 584, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR 1963 SC 395. Bahori Lal Paliwal v. District Magistrate Bulandshahr, AIR 1956 All 511 (FB) and Sankar Dutt Shukla v. President Municipal Board, Auraiya, AIR 1956 All 70.