- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 9 OF 2008 Anil S. Borse ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondent. Mr. Prashant Bhavake i/b Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1. Mr., Nitin Jamdar, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. D. F. Gaikwad, Under-Secretary for Law & Judiciary Dept. Mumbai, present in C.A. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 06, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11th July 2007 passed by the respondents whereby the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner dated 13th - 2 - June 2007 from the post of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane came to be accepted and the petitioner was informed accordingly. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is illegal, bad in law on the ground that before acceptance of the resignation by respondent No.1, the petitioner vide communication dated 4th July 2007 informed the respondent No.1 that he wanted to withdraw the resignation dated 13th June 2007, submitted by him. It is contended that since the petitioner communicated to the respondent No.1 his intention in writing to withdraw his resignation dated 13th June 2007 before acceptance, respondent No.1 could not have issued the communication dated 12th July 2007, hence, the action of Respondent No.1, accepting the resignation of the petitioner is unsustainable in law. In order to substantiate his contention, a reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project & Development India & Anr. [(2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 621]. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the communication dated 12th July 2007 and supported the action of the respondent No.1. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his - 3 - resignation from the post of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane dated 13th June 2007. It is further submitted that there is no mention in the said resignation letter that it will come into effect from the future date. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted on 12th July 2007. The resolution was issued in this regard on 12th July 2007, and a copy thereof was communicated to the petitioner. The action of the respondent is in conformity with Clause 4 of the Circular, issued by the State Government dated 27th November 1974. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that respondent No.1 has not received any communication dated 4th July 2007 prior to 12th July 2007 i.e. the date on which the resignation letter dated 13th June 2007 was accepted by respondent No.1 nor after 12th July 2007. 3. We have considered the contention canvassed on behalf of the respective parties. In the instant case following facts are not in dispute- . The petitioner who was the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane was well aware that he had submitted letter of - 4 - resignation dated 13th June 2007 to the respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that in the said letter of resignation, the petitioner has not mentioned that it would come into effect at a future date. It was a letter of resignation simplicitor which would come into effect from the moment it was accepted by the Competent Authority. The letter of resignation was accepted by the Competent Authority on 12th July 2007. The resolution in this regard was issued dated 12th July 2007, a copy of which was communicated to the petitioner. 4. The action of the respondent appears to be in conformity with the procedure stipulated in Clause 4 of the Government Circular, dated 27th November 1974. There is absolutely nothing on record except the bare statement in the petition that the petitioner communicated to respondent No.1, his intention to withdraw the resignation. In the absence of tangible, positive evidence to this effect, it is very difficult for us to place reliance on the bare statement in the petition in this regard. 5. So far as the judgment cited by the petitioner in support of his contention is concerned, we are afraid that it does not further the case of the petitioner. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, - 5 - the action of the respondent in our view is consistent and sustainable in law and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]