The court established that the acceptance of resignation and its effective date are determined by the relevant legal provisions and interpretations, as well as the specific circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh who has filed an affidavit-in-opposition.

2. Considering the subject matter of the dispute and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage.

3. The issue is with regard to the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Mining Development Officer in the Department of Geology & Mining vide an order, dated 03.08.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that he has rendered unblemished service for about 14 years.

5. Contemplating to contest the forthcoming Assembly Election, 2024, the petitioner had submitted a resignation letter on 08.09.2023 to the appropriate authority. However, the same was not acted upon which was required to be done within a period of 90 days. By an additional affidavit, the petitioner has also brought on record that though a No Objection Certificate (for short, ‘NOC’) was given, the same was cancelled and such cancellation was the subject matter of the dispute in another writ petition being WP (C) 489 (AP) 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 07.12.2023 directing the authorities to reconsider the matter by granting appropriate opportunity to the parties. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is extracted hereinbelow:-

“9…On the basis of general consensus arrived at the point, the Court is inclined to observed that (i). considering that the cancellation of NOC will have civil consequence, the Court is inclined to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Longding (respondent No. 3) to grant opportunity to the concerned parties to adduce evidence and to produce documents in their support and thereafter, make an endeavour to dispose of the objection relating to cancellation of NOC within an outer period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and (ii). That the order of cancellation of the NOC dated 18.09.2023, shall be subject to further adjudication that would be made by the Deputy Commissioner, Longding; in other words, the said order dated 18.09.2023 shall not create any permanent right in favour of any person and shall be subject to outcome of a fresh determination”.

6. This Court is, however, has been informed that, though the order, dated 07.12.2023, whereby 60 days time was given for re-consideration, till date, no orders, whatsoever, have been passed.

7. Shri Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the relevant O.M. dated 11.02.1988 & 31.05.1994. He submits that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner and he was not holding any sensitive post, for which there would arise any difficulty for the Department to accept the resignation. He, otherwise, submits that since the period of 90 days is over since the date of submitting the resignation letter on 08.09.2023, this Court may assume deemed acceptance of the resignation. It is reiterated that the severance of the employer-employee relationship would not affect any interest of the Department.

8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Punjab National Bank-vs-P.K. Mittal ; reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175 and Sanjay Jain-vs- National Aviation Company of India Limited ; reported in (2019) 14 SCC 492 .

9. In the case of Punjab National Bank (Supra) , it has been held that if an employee submits a notice for resignation, the employer cannot unilaterally reduce the period of notice inasmuch as, the employee would have the liberty to withdraw his resignation before it becomes effective.

10. In the case of Sanjay Jain (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with the O.M. and has made the following observations:-

“16... The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the decision