1 W.P.7277.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7277 OF 2008 Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Devtala, Tq. Ausa, District Latur, Through its President Mahadeo S/o Vishwanath Gore,Age 59 years, Occup.: Agriculture, R/o Latur, District Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1 Smt. Smruti W/o Navneetdas Kasari, Age 45 Years, Occup.: Household, R/o Main Road, Gandhi Chowk, Ausa, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. 2 The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad , Latur, District Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. V.D.Hon,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri. S.G.Rudrawar,Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. S.B.Pulkundwar,AGP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 29th August, 2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, in Appeal No.124 of 2006. The Appeal was allowed. Respondent No.1 was appellant before the lower Court. 2 W.P.7277.08 2. It is common ground that the petitioner is an Education Society/Trust and runs a secondary school at Ausa, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. Respondent No.1 was working as Head Mistress of the school. It is the case of the petitioner-society that, she voluntarily tendered her resignation on 21st March, 2006. The petitioner-society, therefore, appointed one Smt. Margane as Head Mistress. However, respondent No. 2 – Education Officer intervened and cancelled/refused the approval of appointment of Smt. Margane, as Head Mistress. . In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed an appeal No.124 of 2006 before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, challenging the theory of resignation and termination of her services. 3. Without going into reasons, it may be said that, this appeal remained pending for quite some time and got shuttled between Nashik and Latur Court. . On 21st July, 2008, the petitioner - Society sought permission to file additional written statement, in which they tried to put forth some more facts in respect of dismissal of respondent No.1, through some subsequent action undertaken during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Presiding Officer, however, rejected their application on 20th August, 2008. . Eventually, the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal allowed the appeal on 29th August,2008 and held that petitioner- society could not proved that respondent No.1 had tendered her 3 W.P.7277.08 resignation and also held that the alleged resignation letter of respondent No.1 was fabricated document. He directed her reinstatement with full back wages. This Judgment and order is being challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record/documents produced before me, I have come to a conclusion that petition deserves to be dismissed. I have also come to the conclusion that the petitioner- society's case is false. 5. The case of respondent No.1, I hold, is more believable. She stated in her complaint/Appeal Memo that she had not given any notice of resignation in December, 2005. She stated that, for few days in February, 2006 she took leave. She said, during her absence senior most teacher in the school was holding charge of her post. She said, on 20th February, 2006, she came back to attend the duty, the Management as well as in-charge senior teacher prevented her from discharging her duties as Head Mistress. This tussle went on for about one month. She said, few days prior to 16th March, 2006, she lodged a complaint to the Education Officer regarding this. She said, on 16th March, 2006 the Education Officer sent a written warning to the Petitioner-Society that they should not hamper and obstruct the respondent NO.1’s work as Head Mistress. The petitioner has not denied the fact that the Education Officer sent them a letter on 16th March, 2006. . In this back ground, the case of the petitioner-society is 4 W.P.7277.08 required to be examined. They contended that the respondent No.1 submitted notice of resignation on 25th December 2005. As per rules they would act on the notice for three months. They then proposed a meeting to decide the fate of the notice on 18th March, 2006. They invited the Respondent No.1 for the meeting and in her presence they passed a resolution accepting the resignation. If the Management was intimated by Education Officer on 16th March, 2006, that they should not interfere in the respondent No.1’s work as Head Mistress, naturally, the reaction to this warning/letter from the petitioner society/Management would be of surprise and they would have promptly informed the Education Officer that respondent NO.1 had already tendered her notice of resignation long back in December, 2005. They obviously did not take such steps. Therefore, it seems, on 16th March, 2006 or thereabout the petitioner society did not have a stand that there was resignation notice of December, 2005. Upon query to Shri Hon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to how come his client did not respond promptly to letter of Education Officer dated 16th March, 2006, on instructions, Shri Hon, tried to tell me that his client has original documents to show that on 18th March, 2006, respondent NO.1 had attended the meeting, which discussed and accepted notice of resignation. He volunteered to show me the original minutes of the meeting of 18th March, 2006.(This document was not before the lower court and by consent of the parties I perused it.) On perusal of the same, I found that this record was created -after thought- to suite the petitioner’s case. I also found that purported signature of respondent No.1 on the proceeding book is an apparent forgery. (I compared admitted signature of respondent NO.1, which is available on record with the 5 W.P.7277.08 signature on the proceeding book and found marked difference. Apart from that, the resolution that was passed made no reference to the notice of resignation purportedly sent to the society, in December, 2005. The resolution speaks about a resignation, which was tendered on the very day at 10.00 a.m. The resolution further mentions that, because respondent No.1 had "suddenly" tendered her resignation to the petitioner-society on that day at 10.00 a.m., an "emergency" meeting was called at 11.00 a.m. The contents of the resolution thus would prove the case of the petitioner society false. On the facts, findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer are not unassailable, and I am not inclined to disturb the same. 6. For one more reason this petition should fail. The petitioner society had tried to put forth a case that prior to 28th March, 2008 the petitioner-society by following due process conducted disciplinary enquiry against respondent NO.1 and terminated her lawfully. Of course, this is not subject matter of this petition. I am, therefore, not inclined to discuss its veracity etc. Nonetheless, the fact that petitioner society issued show cause notice prior to dismissing her on 28th March, 2008 raises presumption that petitioner society assume that respondent No.1 was in their service at that time. . Thus, the petition should fail. The petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged. Sd/- [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] MTK/ok 6 W.P.7277.08