PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE present appeal arises out of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24. 3. 1998 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to accept the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1.
(2.) IN the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 contested the acceptance of his resignation. On 6. 5. 1988 the resignation was submitted by the respondent No. 1. IN his resignation the respondent No. 1 expressed that the same should be effective from 16. 8. 1988. On 24. 6. 1988 the competent authority drawn proceedings by virtue of which the resignation tendered by the respondent No. 1 was accepted. It was further ordered that he will be relieved with effect from 16. 8. 1988 afternoon. A communication to this effect was sent to the respondent. On 2. 7. 1988, the respondent received this communication. 16th August was declared as Holiday. Therefore, on 17. 8. 1988 the respondent No. 1 was relieved. After receiving communication of acceptance of the resignation on 2. 7. 1988, the respondent No. 1 on 11. 7. 1988 addressed a letter (Annexure 3 ). IN this application the respondent No. 1 has said as under: *******8 This communication of the respondent No. 1 was rejected vide Annex. 4. Consequently came the relieving of the respondent No. 1 on 17. 8. 1988. After all this happened, on 10. 9. 1988 the respondent No. 1 sent another request produced alongwith the writ petition as Annex. 7. In this communication the respondent No. 1 desired that he withdraws his resignation. Learned Single Judge after considering the case of the respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Balram Gupta (1), Raj Kumar vs. U. O. I. (2) and Punjab National Bank vs. P. K. Mittal (3) the resignation could only come into effect from the date the employee had mentioned and even if it was accepted prior to the date of effectivity, the employee had a right to withdraw it and in this light allowed the writ petition and ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. The appellant has contested the decision. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 1 gave an unequivocal resignation vide Annex. 2. In Annex. 3 he has prayed that the notice regarding resignation be extended upto 31. 12. 1988. He has not expressed the intention of withdrawing the resignation. What has been expressed is that the date of effectivity of the resignation should be changed to 31. 12. 1988. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the wish of the respondent No. 1 was to get the notice date extended. It does not in any way tantamount to withdrawal of the resignation. The respondent No. 1 had to withdraw the resignation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Choosing to change its date of effectivity at will is not inconsonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The State of Rajasthan in its administrative decision has held as under:- `` (3) Attention is invited to the Government of Rajasthan's Decision No. 1 which gives discretion to the competent authority to accept resignation. Normally it is not in the interest of Government to retain the services of an unwilling Government servant and so resignation from service should be accepted as a general rule except in the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid order. ''
(3.) THE State has reviewed the case of unwilling Government servants. THE case of the respondent No. 1 vide Annex. 2 is clear that he is unwilling to continue and even in Annex. 3 there was no intention expressed by the respondent No. 1 to continue but he only wanted that the notice period should be extended. That did not change the intention of the respondent No. 1 to be a positive one to resign. He continued to be an unwilling employee. Under such circumstances if the resignation was accepted then no wrong was committed. What is significant in the conduct of the respondent No. 1. He was relieved on 17. 8. 1988 and the real withdrawal of the resignation was sought by him only on 10. 9. 1988. Nearly about 3 weeks after the relieving. In these circumstances also it can be seen that until after relieving he was unwilling. It was only in retrospect that he decided to withdraw the resignation. Such waivering and uncertain employees cannot serve the cause of the Government and thus such unwilling employee does not serve any good to the Government therefore no wrong has been committed in not permitting him to continue in service. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and has contended that latent intent of respondent No. 1 should be read in Annex. 3 to the effect that he wanted to withdraw his resignation. This extension was only a camouflage to that. Subsequently he has written for withdrawal. All these dates are prior in time and thus, he has expressed his intention to continue in service. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of J. N. Srivastava vs. Union of India and another (4), and has stressed that the appellant should be continued in service. ;