1. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by the respondents dated 14th October, 2009, which is at Annexure7 to the memo of the present petition whereby, the resignation which was tendered on 11th June, 2008 and which was withdrawn on 9th April, 2009, has been accepted and thereby, the services of the present petitioner as Superintendent of Mines have been brought to an end.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 15.3 of the Common Coal Cadre Rules, which has been accepted by the Board of Directors of Coal India Limited and which has force of law and which governs the service conditions of the Executives/Officers of the Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies, an employee may resign from the job by informing the appointing authority through his controlling officer in writing of his intention to do so either by giving three months notice or by payment of salary in lieu thereof. Thereafter, the controlling authority will make necessary recommendation to the appointing authority for acceptance or otherwise of the resignation and the employee will be relieved from his duties only after he is communicated the acceptance of resignation in writing. In pursuance of this provision, the present petitioner tendered his resignation on 11th June, 2008, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition. Thereafter, the said resignation was withdrawn on 9th April, 2009, which is at Annexure3 and 3/1 to the memo of the present petition. The reasons for withdrawal have also been mentioned in those two annexures, but, after long lapse of six months from withdrawal of the resignation by the petitioner, the Management on 14th October, 2009 accepted the resignation tendered by the petitioner, which is Annexure7 to the memo of the present petition. This is not permissible in the eye of law as stated by the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that looking to Rule 15.3 of the Common Coal Cadre Rules, the resignation tendered by the employee has to be accepted in writing by the respondents employer and if any employee is withdrawing the resignation prior to acceptance he should be allowed to resume his duties.

3. Counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as under:

(i) (1978) 2 SCC 301;

(ii) (2001) 1 SCC 158; and

(iii) (2005) 8 SCC 314.

On the basis of all three decisions, it is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that prior to acceptance of the resignation by the employer petitioner has right to withdraw the resignation. In the facts of the present case even Exit Interview was taken on 22nd August, 2008 and the respondents had not accepted the resignation even for more than 12 months period thereafter. Meanwhile, the whole family of the petitioner had not at all interested for withdrawal of the resignation and ultimately, he withdrew the resignation in the month of April, 2009. During this thinking process, for getting the livelihood, the petitioner had worked with some private agency, but, that was also not continued because he wanted to withdraw his resignation. These facts have also been given in the letter dated 30th July, 2009 written by the petitioner to the Management, which is at Annexure6 to the memo of the petition. Thus, the intention to withdraw the resignation was running in the mind of the petitioner since long and once the resignation was already withdrawn it cannot be accepted and that too after long lapse of six months period and hence, the order at Annexure7 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner after tendering his resignation on 11th June, 2008 from the post of Superintendent of Mines stopped coming to the place of employment on and from 16th June, 2008 thereafter, he got employment somewhere else also. This brings to an end automatically the employee and employer relationship. M