G.K. Misra, C.J.
1. Facts are not very much in dispute. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of Kalamari U.P. School in the District of Ganjam. He tendered his resignation on 3rd of October 1969. On 7-10-69 he withdrew his resignation. The resignation was however accepted on 31-10-69 with effect from 4-10-69. On 27-4-1970 the Director of Public Instructions (Schools) (Opposite Party No. 1) directed the District Inspector of Schools (Opposite Party No. 2) to reinstate the petitioner in his former post. Subsequently on 19-5-70 opposite party No. 1 recalled his order dated 27-4-70 as the resignation had been accepted on 31-10-69 with effect from 4-10-69. The petitioner assails the order dated 19-5-70 as being contrary to law.
2. Position of law is well settled that a Government servant has no right of withdrawing the resignation once it is accepted. But if he withdraws the resignation before its acceptance, Government cannot accept the resignation saying that the petitioner has no locus standi to withdraw it. The matter is concluded by a number of Supreme Court decisions (see Raj Kumar v. Union of India : (1970)ILLJ13SC ). The facts in that case were undoubtedly different but the principle has been laid down in paragraph 5 of that case as follows:
Where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance the public servant concerned has locus paenitentia but not thereafter.
3. On the admitted facts in this case, that the resignation was withdrawn much before its acceptance, there was no resignation to be accepted subsequently. The petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service and there was no termination of his service with effect from 4-10-1969. He is entitled to arrears of salary.
4. In the result, the writ application succeeds. The impugned orders dated 31-10-1969 and 19-5-1970 are quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
A. Misra, J.
5. I agree.