1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4682 OF 2008 1. Secretary } Shri Barashiv Hanuman Gramin } Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, } Barashiv, Tq. Barashiv, } Dist. : Hingoli. } 2. Head Mistress } Ahilyadevi Holkar Kanya } Vidyalaya, Bank Colony, } Basmat, Tq. Basmat, } Dist. : Hingoli. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Vidya W/o Sopanrao Dalvi } Age : 39 Yrs., Occ. : Service, } R/o : C/o Ramchandra Bagal, } Near Mondha Maruti, Basmat, } Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. } 2. The Education Officer (Secondary) } Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, } Dist. Hingoli. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate holding for Mr. S.R.Bagal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 . 2 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03/02/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this Petition, the petitioners impugn Judgment and Order dated 21/4/2008 rendered by the School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal No. 19 of 2007, whereby and whereunder respondent no. 1 was directed to be reinstated as Assistant Teacher and her alleged resignation dated 6/11/2006 was held as void. 2. Undisputedly, the respondent no. 1 was employed as Assistant Teacher in the School run by the petitioners. She is duly qualified and was appointed by Order dated 14/6/1999 to work as Assistant Teacher in Hindi subject. There is no dispute about the fact that she was permanent employee of the School. There is also no dispute about the fact that on 6/11/2006, she tendered a hand written resignation letter to the Head Mistress of the School i.e. petitioner no. 2, stating that for some reasons, she wanted to resign from the post. 3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 submitted a letter dated 10/1/2007 to the petitioner no. 2. She stated that she had tendered the resignation letter due to a quarrel picked up by the Head Mistress and because she was emotionally charged at that time due to angry mood. She further stated that she was not allowed to join the duty and 3 was told to approach the President of the School Committee. She stated in the letter that she was withdrawing the resignation letter. She made a complaint to the Education Officer regarding the petitioners’ attitude and refusal to allow her to join the service. She filed Appeal before the School Tribunal alleging that she had withdrawn the resignation on the very next day i.e. on 7/11/2006. She alleged that the resignation letter dated 6/11/2006 could not be acted upon and was void. She further asserted that she was orally terminated by the petitioners and, therefore, she sought reinstatement in the service. 4. The School Tribunal came to the conclusion that the resignation letter dated 6/11/2006 was void and inoperative because the acceptance of the same was not properly communicated to the respondent no. 1 nor it was, in fact, duly submitted by her. The School Tribunal came to the conclusion that the resignation letter is in- voluntarily given by the respondent no. 1 under spell of anger. The resignation letter could not have been acted upon, the School Tribunal held, because the respondent no. 1 had immediately approached the petitioners with a request to allow her to join the duty. The School Tribunal, therefore, allowed the Appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Question involved in this petition is, : “ Whether the 4 resignation letter dated 6/11/2006 submitted by the respondent no. 1 was voluntary, legal, proper and was duly accepted by the petitioners and, therefore, the impugned Judgment is liable to be quashed ? ” 7. So far as question of resignation is concerned, it may be mentioned that Section 7 of the Maharashtra employees of Private Schools’ Regulation Act, 1977 requires the employee to send the resignation letter by registered post. He is supposed to prepare two (2) copies of the letter, one (1) of which is required to be retained by him. The resignation was screened by the School Committee and on the recommendation of the School Committee, it was accepted by the Management Committee of the Institution. Rule 40 of M.E.P.S. Rule, 1981 prescribes procedure for submission of the resignation by an employee. The employee may leave service after giving three (3) calender months’ notice and if such notice is dispensed with, then by paying salary for the period of three (3) months in lieu of the same. The employee may relinquish from his office by putting end to the contract of the service after the payment of three (3) months’ salary. The respondent no. 1, admittedly, scribed a single sentence letter of resignation whereby she informed that “ due to some reasons ” she resigned from the post. The resignation letter was not sent by registered post. Of course, non compliance of the procedure under Section 7 may not entail any penal consequences. The omission to send the resignation letter by registered post will not by itself make the 5 resignation letter in-valid. Still, however, the non compliance of Section 7 will be regarded as an added factor when the employee subsequently disputes voluntariness of the resignation letter. For, such provision intends to ensure voluntariness of the resignation letter. The object is to ensure that the employee is not forced to tender the resignation or the malpractice of obtaining resignation letter before issuing appointment letter itself, also could be checked. Needless to say, the non compliance of Section 7 and Rule 40 are relevant aspects which create serious doubt as regards voluntary nature of the resignation. 8. Coming to the further developments, it emerges from the record that the respondent no. 1 ventilated her grievance to the petitioner no. 2 as well as to the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 communicated to the petitioners by letter dated 1/2/2007 what complaint was made by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 sent reply letter vide Outward No. 110/2006-2007 dated 06/02/07. A copy of the said letter is placed on record which is marked as ‘ X ’. On perusal of the said reply letter of the petitioner no. 2, it is amply clear that on 6/2/2007 though opportunity was available, yet, acceptance of the resignation letter dated 6/11/2006 was not communicated to the respondent no. 2. The matter does not stop here. The respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit in this petition, which clarifies the fact situation as regards non availability of any communication of the petitioners about 6 acceptance of the resignation letter submitted by the respondent no. 1 in his office. There is no postal acknowledgment placed on record about sending of the communication to the respondent no. 2 regarding acceptance of the resignation letter of the respondent no. 1 by the petitioners. The petitioners have placed on record copies of the resolutions dated 25/11/2006 of the School Committee and dated 8/1/2007 of the Management Committee. There was no impediment in seeking due verification from the respondent no. 1 regarding voluntariness of her resignation. She was never called before the School Committee or the Management Committee to explain her stance. She had not stated any tangible reason to relinquish her post. Why for a permanent employee should immediately resign from the service ? The verification of voluntariness of the resignation could be obtained by calling her personally and recording the reasons for her resignation or at least it could be gathered from the Head Mistress. It is always probable that in heat of anger, after heated exchange of words, an employee may immediately tender the resignation letter. However, lateron he may resile from such decision which was prompted by emotional level of thinking. The School Tribunal accepted the version of the respondent no. 1 regarding her subsequent conduct. She tried to plead with the petitioner no. 2 and the President of the Management Committee to allow her to join the duty. It appears that she was required to wait due to verbal assurance given to her or because she laboured under wrong impression that she will be given respite after 7 condoning her lapses. 9. The School Tribunal has recorded valid reasons to reach conclusion that the resignation could not be treated as voluntary act of the respondent no. 1. There appears no perversity as such in the findings of the School Tribunal. Mr. Sakolkar seeks to rely on certain observations in Secretary Vikas Shikshan Mandal and another V/s Smt. Sindhu B. Patil and another 1997 (1) Mah.LR 737 . On the basis of the fact situation obtained in the given case, the Division Bench of this Court reached conclusion that the resignation letter of the employee was legal and valid. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the Education Officer of Zilla Parishad had enquired into the matter and found that the resignation was voluntary and the same was duly accepted. Thus, there was independent enquiry about voluntary nature of the resignation. That is lacking in the present case. Reliance is also placed on certain observations in Anandilal Ganesh Podar Society and another V/s Mrs. V.Chakravarti and another 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 480. In the resignation letter submitted by the respondent no. 1 Mrs. Chakravarti in the given case, it was stated that she was ready to pay compensation in lieu of notice and also had sought “ a good reference ” subject however to the payment of three (3) months’ salary in lieu of the period of notice. It was indication of her voluntary act of giving the resignation letter due to availability of some better prospects. My attention is invited to certain observations in Karachi Education 8 Society, Pune and others V/s Pruthviraj R. Merchant and another 2005 (4) Mh. L.J. 1035 . The fact situation in the present case differs from the fact situation of the said case. In Damodar S/o Vithalrao Raut V/s Education Office, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and others – Maharashtra Education Cases 594, a Single Bench of this Court held that the resignation tendered by the employee was not forwarded by registered post and there was no communication regarding acceptance thereof within reasonable time and, therefore, it was invalid. 10. Considering the settled legal position and the facts of the present case, the findings of the School Tribunal require no interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/WP4682.08