JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against an impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2003.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts have been stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same .
4. The appellant was a teacher in the respondent school. It appears that he submitted his resignation on 17.3.1997. He alleged that he sent a letter dated 18.3.1997 withdrawing his resignation, but this fact has been disputed by the respondent and hence it is not necessary to go into this controversy, as it is a factual controversy. Admittedly, the resignation letter dated 17.3.1997 was accepted by the respondent with effect from 13.5.1997 vide page 40 of the paper book of this appeal. The said acceptance letter states:
MODERN SCHOOL
Vasant Vihar
Ref: MSVV/SPSHARMA/97-98/77
May 13, 1997
Dear Mr. S.P.Sharma
This is to inform you that we accept with regret your resignation letter dated 17th March, 1997. You have our sympathies for the domestic problems you face.
We shall do whatever we can to help your children with their education. You shall be relieved w.e.f. June 17, 1997 after the three months notice period which expires on June 16, 1997.
You are requested to contact the school office after June 16, 1997 on any working day during working hours to settle all full and final dues.
With regards.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(K.J.VARI)
PRINCIPAL
Mr.S.P.Sharma
A-263/1, Hari Nagar Clock Tower
NEW DELHI: 110064
5. A perusal of the acceptance letter dated 13.5.1997 shows that the resignation has in fact been accepted on 17.6.1997. This acceptance letter dated 13.5.1997 states that the appellant shall be relieved w.e.f. 17.6.1997. In other words, the appellant remained in service till 16.6.1997. Hence, the master and servant relationship between the parties was snapped only on 17.6.1997 and not on 13.5.1997. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner and hence this appeal.
6. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned counsel for appellant has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. JT 2005(12) 4165. In that case the resignation of the employee was accepted on 4.1.1993, but was to be effective from 15.1.1993. However, the resignation was withdrawn on 8.1.1993. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that resignation was validly withdrawn and the employee remained in service.
7. The facts of the above case squarely applied to the facts of the present case. Here also the resignation was withdrawn before 17.6.1997. This is evident from the telegram dated 14.5.1997. Copy of this is at page 43 of the paper book and a letter dated 15.5.1997 which is at page 44 of the paper book. The appellant also a wrote letter dated 15.5.1997 to the Director of Education stating that he has withdrawn the resignation. A copy of this letter is at page 45 of the paper book. At page 47 is another letter dated 10.6.1997 of the appellant to the same effect.
8. The above letters and telegram squarely show that the appellant had withdrawn the resignation prior to 17.6.1997. Hence, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case.
9. In Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors. , the Supreme Court held that a resignation means to relinquish the office or to cease to hold the office. In the present case the appellant ceased to hold the office on 17.6.1997 and hence the resignation was effective only on 17.6.1997. The resignation could be withdrawn at any time before 17.6.1997 which was done.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant had fabricated the letter dated 18.3.1997. In our opinion, this fact is disputed by the appellant and it is not for this court to go into this disputed question of fact in writ jurisdiction. At any event, since we have not relied on the alleged letter dated 18.3.1997, the same has no relevance.
11. The appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is granted relief in terms of the prayer in the petition. The appellant will be entitled to his reinstatement with back wages.