B.R. Dube, J.
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 7-10-1965 (Annexure P-16) passed by Respondent No. 3 accepting the resignation of the petitioner dated 22-3-1965.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1963. He was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Budwa, Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol, where respondent No. 1 was the Principal of the school. It is said that on 6-9-1963 some quarrel took place between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on the question of the use of two benches by the petitioner with the result that the respondent No. 1 along with one K. K. Sisodiya went to the petitioners residence and not only abused him but even gave him severe beating causing fracture in the right forearm. The petitioner sent a complaint about the said occurrence to respondent No. 2, the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa, but he did not take any notice of it. The petitioner also approached the respondent No. 3, the Director of Public Instruction, and even sent a complaint about his grievances vide letter dated 30-4-1964 (Annexure P-5). The respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 2 to remove the grievances of the petitioner, but respondent No. 2 without making any enquiry sent a communication to the petitioner that no prima facie case was established against respondent. No. 1. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from Budwa to Madhogarh and subsequently from Madhogarh to Lamsarai in the interior of Sidhi District. He was relieved with immediate effect on 10-9-1964 to join at Lamsarai. As the petitioner on account of his ill-health could not join at Lamsarai, he made a request to treat the period after 10-9-1964 as on leave and suggested that he may be transferred to Satna where medical aid was available, failing which he may be retired from service. These requests of the petitioner were turned down. On account of such treatment from the Education Department the petitioner was highly disturbed mentally and under the impulse of disappointment submitted a conditional resignation on 22-3-1965 vide Annexure P14. It is further urged that subsequently on second thought the petitioner withdrew his resignation by sending letter dated 20-7-1965 vide Annexure P-15, but on 7-10-1965 the petitioner's resignation was accepted vide Annexure P-16. It is therefore urged that after receiving the letter of withdrawal of the resignation the respondent No. 3 was not competent to accept the resignation and hence the said order may be quashed.
3. The respondents opposed the writ petition firstly on the ground of inordinate delay. Secondly, they denied to have received the letter of the petitioner regarding withdrawal of resignation. Thus, according to them, the acceptance of the resignation was proper.
4. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 7-10-1965 while the writ petition was submitted on 23-10-1970. The petitioner could not give any reasonable explanation for this delay. Hence on this ground alone this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. As regards the acceptance of petitioner's resignation it may be pointed out that the respondents in their return have denied that they received any letter dated 20-7-1965 like Annexure P-15 from the petitioner about the withdrawal of his resignation. In support of the statements made in the return, the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa, has submitted an affidavit and there is no ground to disbelieve It. The petitioner only relies on the certificate of posting (Annexure P-19) which shows that three inland-letters were despatched on 20-7-1965 to the Education Minister, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the Director of Public Instruction. Bhopal, and the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa. According to the petitioner, on that date under the said certificate of posting letters to respondents 2 and 3 were sent for withdrawal of the resignation. The respondents in the return have suggested that probably the petitioner had obtained a certificate of posting of the back date to fabricate the application for withdrawal of resignation. In the absence of any evidence on this point we are left to surmises. However, the certificate of posting may give rise to the presumption that the letters were posted but no presumption can be drawn that they were received by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner having already sent his resignation, the communication of its revocation can be said to be complete as against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to whom it was made when they received it, vide Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act. As the respondents 2 and 3 did not receive the communication about the revocation of the resignation, they were within their right to accept it.
6. The statement of the respondents that they did not receive the letter Annexure P-15 appears to be true in view of the contents of the letter Annexure R-1, which was sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 after his resignation was accepted. In this letter he has stated the circumstances under which he had tendered his resignation and prayed for cancellation of his resignation. In this letter the petitioner did not make any allegation that he had sent any letter to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 about withdrawal of the resignation before it was accepted.
7. We may however observe that looking to the language used by the petitioner in Annexure P-14 and the correspondence made by him with the respondents, he had some grievances which were not redressed. It appears that during the time when he required some sympathetic treatment he was transferred from one place to another and it is very likely that out of disgust he tendered the resignation. However, as he had voluntarily chosen to act in a particular way, however indiscreet it may be on his part, we are unable to help him in this matter in spite of the sympathies which we may entertain for him.
8. In the result, this petition fails and it is hereby dismissed accordingly. Looking to the facts of the case, parties to bear their own costs as incurred. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.