resignation of the petitioner is accepted. So, in the absence of any circumstances warranting immediate acceptance of resignation, I do not see any reason to up-hold the order of the respondent- Corporation. When the guidelines stated above clearly gives a procedure to be followed to accept the resignation and when the Corporation has not followed the procedure, I am of the view that Annexure-A has got to be set aside. I am not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that a distinction can be made between clause (b) and (c) of the guidelines. In my view, clause(b) and (c) have to be read together. Clause (b) talks about the resignation should normally be accepted with the least possible delay except in certain type of cases and clause (c) provides for procedure to be followed in acceptance of resignation. If both clauses (b) and (c) are read together, I do not see how the Corporation could accept the resignation immediately on the next day in the absence of any circumstances warranting such acceptance. It is true that the competent authority can accept a notice of less than a month if there are circumstances warranting such acceptance. If that is so, the order accepting resignation should, in my view shows the reasons for accepting resignation. In Annexure-A, that is absent. However, I am not able to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the
