1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the second respondent to consider the letter of resignation dated 20.12.2010 and pass orders immediately relieving the writ petitioner from the services of the Government of Tamil Nadu with effect from 20.12.2010.

2. The writ petitioner joined the Tamil Nadu Medical Services during the year 1993 and was served as Tutor in the Department of Anesthesiology at General Hospital, Chennai till the year 2010. The writ petitioner states that his mother, who was aged 64 years old as of the year 2010, was suffering from Kyphoscolious, Parkinson disease and Osteoporosis and his father Dr.T.Ramamurthi M.D. D.C.H. (Pediatrician), aged about 71 years, during the relevant period, was also suffering from age related diseases. The writ petitioner states that he had to look after his aged parents and he could not able to attend the public duty regularly. The writ petitioner was also suffering from chronic back pain and was not able to render his services.

3. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner submitted the letter of resignation on 20.12.2010, requesting the second respondent to relieve him from the services of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The writ petitioner had not received any information and no orders had been passed during the relevant point of time. Under these circumstance, the writ petitioner received the letter dated 25.12.2011 from the second respondent, seeking explanations from the writ petitioner for not having passed the prescribed examination and for the unauthorised absence from duty with effect from 1.3.2011 onwards. The writ petitioner states in his affidavit that he was under the impression that his resignation letter was accepted by the second respondent and he had been relieved from service with immediate effect.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by the second respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai had issued the letter dated 7.2.2012 to the writ petitioner asking him to explain why his passport should not be impounded. The writ petitioner appeared before the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai and submitted his explanation and pleaded that his passport should not be impounded by accepting his explanation. However, the passport of the writ petitioner was returned to the Regional Passport Officer for verification. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, mainly contended that the writ petitioner submitted his letter of resignation on 20.12.2010 and the second respondent had not taken any decision nor passed any orders. Thus, for all purposes, the writ petitioner was deemed to be relieved from service and the resignation letter submitted by him also was deemed to be accepted by the second respondent. Thus, the direction is to be issued, directing the second respondent to pass an order in this regard.

6. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, further contended that an employee has got the right of resignation and therefore, such a right cannot be denied nor the second respondent can kept the letter of resignation pending for years together. Even in the case of unauthorised absence as alleged against the writ petitioner, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings or taken any disciplinary actions or otherwise against the writ petitioner so far. Under these circumstances, the second respondent must be directed to consider the letter of resignation submitted by the writ petitioner on 20.12.2010 and pass orders relieving him from service retrospectively with effect from 20.12.2010.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner, by stating that the very sanctity of the letter of resignation submitted by the writ petitioner to the second