wp4647.00.sxw 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2000
Shri Kushappa Mahadeo Kamble,
Aged 34 yrs. Occupation Service
now removed, R/o. Panutre,
Taluka Panhala,
District Kolhapur. ....Petitioner.
Vs.
1
The State of Maharashtra
2 The Chairman, Shri Datta Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Panutre,
Taluka Panhala,
District Kolhapur.
3 The head Mastress,
Girls High School & Junior College at Kale,
Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur.
4 The Education Officer, (Secondary),
Kolhapur Zilha Parishad, Kolhapur,
5 The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur. ....Respondents.
Mr. G.N. Salunkhe for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Mane i/by Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.2.
Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 7th May, 2010
JUDGMENT:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:56:12 :::
wp4647.00.sxw 2
1 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order and Judgment of
the School Tribunal (the Tribunal), Kolhapur dated 10/12/1999, thereby
his Appeal on the ground that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 forcibly obtained
his resignation on 05/01/1997, and illegally terminated his services, was
dismissed.
2 On 22nd November, 1994, the Petitioner was appointed as a peon in
Respondent No.3- Girls High School & Junior College. The Petitioner who
is belonging to the Scheduled Castes, became a permanent employee on
30/04/1996. However, full salary was not paid. Therefore, the
representation was made by the Petitioner, accordingly to Respondent No.
2. The Petitioner signed the muster roll up to 31/12/1996. As alleged, the
Petitioner was forced to sign some blank papers on 05/01/1997 and treated
the same as resignation letter by putting undue influence. It was undated
and blank resignation letter. The Petitioner kept the carbon copy of the
same with him. As Respondent No.3 obstructed the Petitioner to attend the
duties on 20th February, 1997, a representation was made to Respondent
Nos. 2 and 4 and ultimately on 31/03/1997, filed an Appeal before the
Tribunal, Kolhapur.
3 Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 defended the same by submitting that the
Petitioner on 1st October, 1996 tendered resignation which was duly
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:56:12 :::
wp4647.00.sxw 3
accepted through the Management Resolution on 05/11/1996 itself, though
on record, no duplicate copies were produced nor any Resolution. The
Petitioner produced the carbon copy of undated blank resignation letter. By
impugned order dated 10/12/1999, the Tribunal, Kolhapur dismissed the
Appeal by holding that the Petitioner-Appellant failed to prove that his
resignation was forcibly obtained on 5th January, 1997 and therefore, not
granted order of reinstatement.
4
Relevant Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for Short “the Act) is as
under:-
“Section-7. Procedure for resignation by employees of
private schools:- If any employee intends to resign his post inany private school, at any time after the appointment date, he
shall draw up a letter of resignation in duplicate and sign both
the copies of that letter and put the date thereon. He may then
forward one copy to the Management by registered post and
keep the other copy with him.”
5 Relevant Rule 40 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
Rules, 1981 (for short, “the Rules”) is as under:-
“Rule-40.(1) A permanent employee may leave service after
giving three calender months notice and a non-permanent
employee may leave service aftergiving one calender month’s
notice. The Management may, however, allow an employee to
leave service earlier on payment of pay (excluding allowances)
for three months, or as the case may be, one month in lieu of
notice by the employee. The amount in lieu of notice shall be
restricted to the pay or the period by which the notice period::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:56:12 :::
wp4647.00.sxw 4falls short.
(2) If any Management allows an employee to leave service
earlier either without due notice or without making payment of
pay in lieu of notice as specified in sub-rule (1), a proportionate
amount of pay in lieu of notice shall be deducted from the grantdue to the school concerned.
(3) An employee entitled to vacation shall not give notice of
resignation during the vacation or so as to cover any part of thevacation. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a
month after the beginning of the first term of the year.”
6 Section 7 of the Act provides that the employees to draw up a letter
of resignation in duplicate and sign both the copies by putting the date on
it. He may forward one copy of the said resignation to the Management by
R.P.A.D. and keep the other copy with him. In the present case, as
observed, the Petitioner-Appellant tendered resignation voluntarily on
01/10/1996. The effective date was 01/11/1996. The Petitioner
withdrawn the substantial amount of Rs. 13,060/- from his Account leaving
the balance amount of Rs.162/- only, as per the passbook produced on
record by the Management. The Petitioner has tendered the resignation
and voluntarily withdrawn the amount on the date of acceptance of his
resignation letter. The Appellant failed to prove that the resignation was
never tendered on 01/10/1996. The Management accepted the resignation
by giving one month time for its effect, as permissible under the Rules as
reproduced above. The acceptance of resignation letter, in the present facts
and circumstances, is well within the framework of the Act and the Rules.
As per Rule 40 itself, the Management can waive even the notice period of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:56:12 :::
wp4647.00.sxw 5
three months and can accept the resignation earlier, as done in the present
case. (Hemant Govind Vaidya Vs. Vasant Dada Sugar Institute & Anr.
2000(1) Bom.C.R. 558). By not sending the resignation letter by a
Registered post A.D., by keeping the copy as prescribed, that itself cannot
be the reason to interfere with the order of acceptance of volunteer
resignation as done in the present case, which was duly acknowledged by
the Management. It is not mandatory to sent the resignation letter to the
Management by Registered Post A.D., he may sent the same by registered
but that does not mean that he cannot tender the resignation personally.
There is no bar to accept the resignation immediately after one month.
7 The Petitioner-Appellant himself failed to prove his own case that the
resignation was obtained on 05/01/1997 though produced one carbon copy
of the same. The learned Tribunal has dealt the same in paragraph No. 5 in
detailed and found that the original Resignation letter and the alleged
carbon copy produced on record are totally different. There are various
disputes and discrepancies in these two documents. Both the documents
were different in all aspect except the basic contents. There is nothing
placed on record to show that the Petitioner lodged any complaint or raise
any grievance that he was forced to resign on 05/01/1997, as alleged.
Mere production of such carbon copy which, as recorded by the learned
Judge, was “prepared subsequently” and as the Petitioner failed to
substantiate the same and/or put any other contra material to the case of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:56:12 :::
wp4647.00.sxw 6
management, with regard to the alleged forcible resignation dated
01/10/1996, I see there is no case now, to find fault in the order.
8 While admitting the Petition, except early hearing, the Court has not
granted any ad-interim relief. The Petitioner failed to substantiate his own
case. The case so placed and submitted by the Management and in view of
the reasoning so given on record though there are allegations made about
the fraud and coercive undue influence and as the same remained unproved
for want of material, I see there is no case made out by the Petitioner to
disturb the reasoned order.
9 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule
discharged.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:56:12 :::