1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.12572/2010 Dr Vipin Jain Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 27.9.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Anand Sharma – for petitioner BY THE COURT: By this writ petition, challenge has been made to the charge sheet dated 30.3.2010. It is stated that petitioner made an application for acceptance of his resignation. The said application was moved on 31.3.2006. There was prayer for deemed acceptance of resignation w.e.f. 4.2.2006. Respondents did not pay any heed to the request made by petitioner and, now, erroneously issued impugned charge sheet. Charge sheet contains allegations of absence from duty. It is submitted that petitioner is not willing to work and tendered his resignation thus respondents were under an obligation to accept the same. Pursuant to charge sheet, there exist demand of amount, even not due against petitioner. Taking note 2 of aforesaid, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is having no intention to work thus even if he is dismissed from service he has no grievance but demand of amount be declared as illegal. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record. It is a case where admittedly application for resignation was made in the year 2006 and, thereupon, petitioner absented from duty though, resignation was not accepted by respondents. Looking to aforesaid, petitioner was served with the impugned charge sheet. A challenge to the charge sheet cannot be entertained as this court cannot act as disciplinary authority. Such grievance, if any, can be made by way of submitting reply to the charge sheet. Otherwise also, mere tendering resignation cannot be treated as deemed acceptance more so in the light of the order passed on 20.12.2007 (Annexure-3) asking petitioner to deposit required amount in lieu of notice for resignation. Petitioner was informed that if he wants to resign from services then necessary payment has to be deposited in the Treasury. Petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid and continued to remain absent from duty. In the light of aforesaid, respondents had no option but to issue charge sheet. Petitioner has challenged the charge sheet only 3 under apprehension that amount may be recovered from him. However, for that purpose, writ petition is premature. It is settled law that mere tendering resignation cannot result acceptance. Rather, acceptance of resignation is not mandatory for respondents more so when they informed petitioner for depositing necessary amount for acceptance of resignation but petitioner failed to comply with the same. Letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure-3) has not been challenged by the petitioner. In any case, apprehension of recovery of amount cannot be a ground to challenge a charge sheet. The prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to accept his resignation cannot be accepted in view of discussion made above. The writ petition has been filed otherwise with latches for the aforesaid prayer. I am not even inclined to interfere in the charge sheet merely based on apprehension of recovery of amount. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of this writ petition will not take away the right of the petitioner if, ultimately, a demand of recovery is issued. The aforesaid liberty has been given looking to the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, otherwise, complete charge sheet has not been filed by 4 petitioner to look into the facts regarding demand of amount, as alleged. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma