1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2010 (Amrut Seva Bhavi Sanstha, Parbhani and one Vs. Presiding Officer University and College Tribunal, Nagpur and 4 others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.P.Raghute, counsel for petitioners. Shri Desai h/f P.B.Patil, counsel for respondents. Coram : R.K.Deshpande, J. Dated : 5 th April, 2011 This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, allowing Appeal Nos.A-2 of 2008, A-3 of 2008 and A-4 of 2008, filed by the respondent nos.2, 3 and no.4 challenging otherwise termination from service as the non-teaching employees. The case of the respondents was that the 2 resignation letters submitted on 30.1.2008 were not voluntary resignations, but the same were issued under threat and coercion from the respondents. The Tribunal has held that even though it is assumed for a moment that the said resignations were not taken by force or by threatening, the surrounding circumstances certainly show that the resignations were not voluntarily. On the basis of this finding, the appeals are allowed, directing to reinstate the respondent nos.2, 3 and no.4 in service with continuity of service. It is left open to the petitioner management to continue the enquiry against the respondent nos.2, 3 and no.4. Further, the order has also been passed directing payment of 50% backwages. The College run by the petitioner, started on no grant basis in the year 2000-2001. The respondent no.2 Shri Ankush S/o Tejrao Lomte was appointed initially as a “`Laboratory Assistant” on 16.6.2003 for one session. Thereafter on 15.4.2005 he was again appointed for one session. Thereafter, on 28.5.2006 and on 28.5.2007 again he was appointed for one 3 session only on each occasion. The respondent no.3 was appointed as a “Junior Clerk” initially on 10.4.2005 and subsequently on 25.5.2006 and 25.5.2007. All these appointments were for a period of one session. The respondent no.4 was appointed as a “Peon” initially on 16.6.2002 for a period of one session and thereafter on 10.4.2005, 25.5.2006 and on 25.5.2007 for one session on each occasion. It is not in dispute that from the academic session 2006-2007 the College started receiving 100% salary. The case of the management was, that the respondent no.2, 3 and no.4 had voluntarily tendered their resignations on 30.1.2008, in order to avoid the disciplinary enquiry proposed to be initiated against them, by issuing several show cause notices dated 23.7.2007, 9.9.2007 and 17.12.2007 for various acts of misconducts alleged against them. All the show cause notices issued to the respondent nos.2 to 4 were similar in nature. The case of the respondent nos.2, 3 and no.4 before the Tribunal was that they had tendered the resignations 4 under the force and threat from the management on 30.1.2008 and on the same day, they had given letters to the management not to accept the resignations, which were taken from them, by force. It was also the case of the respondent nos.2 to 4, that the police complaint was also lodged on 31.1.2008, in respect of such resignations. Even if, it is assumed, that all the orders of appointment issued to the respondent nos.2 to 4 were only for one academic session, the last order was issued on 25.5.2007. Obviously, it would have come to an end in the month of April, 2008. Naturally, the respondent nos.2 to 4 would have been out of employment from April, 2008 and there was no question, either continuing them in service beyond April, 2008 or conducting enquiry against them or asking them to submit resignation or to accept the resignation. In this situation, the contention of management that it was purely temporary appointment for one session with no right to continue on the post, the issuance of the show cause notices on 23.7.2007, 9.9.2007 and 17.12.2007 to built a case of imposing punishment and then employees tendering resignation on 30.1.2008, and the 5 management immediately accepting the resignations on 31.1.2008, does not appear to be genuine and creates doubt about the resignations being voluntarily tendered by the respondent nos.2 to 4. In this background, the Tribunal has after taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances recorded the finding that the resignations were not voluntary. It is a possible view of the matter and hence no fault can be found with it. The petition is therefore dismissed. JUDGE Bhushan