7.1 The learned Tribunal quoted from various sources to elucidate the meaning of resignation and observed that in cases of the present nature, the Rules contemplate trilateral acts of the stakeholders in order to make the resignation complete, those acts being tendering of resignation by the employee, followed by acceptance of the resignation by way of resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the School, followed by approval thereof by the DoE. In the circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal held that as per letter dated 19.12.2018, the resignation was to come into effect on 13.02.2019, but the School instead of waiting for maturity of the request on 13.02.2019 illegally accepted the resignation on 19.12.2018; that after 13.02.2019, a meeting of the Managing Committee of the School was required to be convened, accepting or rejecting the resignation by way of Resolution and thereafter, the DoE ought to have been approached for approval; that the resignation letter of the Teacher and the acceptance resolution of the Managing Committee should have accompanied the letter seeking approval of DoE under Rule 114A, but admittedly no such exercise was undertaken. The learned Tribunal also observed that even in the appeal under consideration of the Tribunal, no Minutes of Meeting of the Managing Committee of the School were filed, so it was a fit case to draw adverse inference that no such acceptance of the resignation was done. Further, the learned Tribunal held that in the present case acceptance of the resignation could have been only after 13.02.2019 and not prior thereto, insofar as complete cessation of employer-employee relationship had not come in existence on account of there being no completion of clearance
