1 wp-4863-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 4863 OF 2009 Shri.Prakash Govind Dighe ..Petitioner Vs. Yogeshwar Education Society Dhulgaon, and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.P.Thorat Adv. for Petitioner .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-original complainant. 2. In the year 1995, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Respondent No.1-Educational Institution. He came to be promoted to the post of Head Master by order dated 14.3.2005. However, on 7.8.2007, the Petitioner came to be demoted from the post of Head Master to Assistant Teacher. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No.NSK/18/2007 before the School Tribunal, Nasik. The said Appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 25.2.2009. Hence, this petition. 2 wp-4863-09 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the letter dated 7.8.2007 given by the petitioner wherein he wanted to get reverted from the post of Head Master to the post of Assistant Teacher, was taken from him under threats. The threats were given to his life and under such threats, letter was obtained from him. It is submitted that thereafter, the Petitioner was prevented from working as Head Master and Respondent-Institution appointed Respondent No.4 on the post of Head Master and Respondent No.4 started working as Head Master with effect from 1.9.2007. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is ample material to show that the letter dated 7.8.2007 was obtained from the Petitioner under threats. He has pointed out letter written to the Education Officer on 25.9.2007 as also letter dated 9.8.2007, wherein it is stated that the letter dated 7.8.2007 was obtained from him under threats. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that many such letters were written to various authorities that the letter dated 7.8.2007 was obtained from him under threats. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the letter of acceptance for demotion dated 7.8.2007 has been addressed to the Education Officer and there is an endorsement of the Education Officer thereon stating that "signed before me". This clearly shows that the Petitioner was in presence of Education Officer, when he executed letter of acceptance for demotion 3 wp-4863-09 dated 7.8.2007. There is no material on record to show that the Petitioner was threatened by the Management prior to letter dated 7.8.2007. Moreover, it is seen that the Petitioner himself had handed over charge to Respondent No.4 on 27.8.2007. It is also pertinent to note that thereafter the Petitioner has signed the muster roll as Assistant Teacher which belies his case that he was forcibly demoted. There is no circumstance which can even remotely indicate that the letter of demotion was obtained from the Petitioner under duress, coercion or threat. The stand taken by the petitioner is belied and specially in view of the fact that the petitioner has executed the letter dated 7.8.2007 in the presence of the Education Officer. The letter is addressed to the Education Officer. The letter is also acknowledged by the Education Officer. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the Management of Respondent Institute forcefully and under duress or coercion, obtained the letter of relinquishment of right from the Petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in fact the Management demanded Rs.1 lakh from the Petitioner and Petitioner had paid Rs.80,000/- to the Management and he had not paid balance of Rs.20,000/-. As he has not paid balance of Rs.20,000/-, the Management has obtained this letter from him by giving threats. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on a letter dated 4 wp-4863-09 26.4.2006 wherein it is mentioned that if the Petitioner does not pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- within 15 days, he may be removed from service. As far as this contention and the letter dated 26.4.2006 is concerned, on perusal of the Appeal Memo which was preferred by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal, no such ground has been raised by him in the Memo of Appeal. Moreover, no such contention was ever raised before the School Tribunal nor any evidence led on this aspect before the Tribunal. Hence, at this belated stage, reliance placed by the Petitioner on this letter, would not in any way help the Petitioner. 6. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there are various newspaper reports to show that the Management has been victimizing its staff. He submitted that not only the Petitioner but there were various other teachers and earlier Head Masters who had made complaints against the Management. Again as far as this aspect is concerned, making a bald statement at this stage, would not in any way help the Petitioner without there being any material produced and proved before the Tribunal. 7. The case of the Petitioner is that the Management got letter of demotion executed from the Petitioner under force. But, however, as observed earlier, there is an endorsement made by the Education Officer on the correspondence which states that "signed before me". In the Appeal Memo there is no grievance made against the Education 5 wp-4863-09 Officer nor was any grievance against the Education Officer ever raised before the Tribunal. If at all now the Petitioner is coming up with the case that the Management with the help of the Education Officer got the letter executed from the Petitioner, it is pertinent to note that he has not made any grievance against the Education Officer nor was it ever contended that endorsement of the Education Officer on the said letter is forged. On the contrary, it is noticed that the Petitioner was having a heart problem and on earlier occasions also, the Petitioner had voluntarily relinquished his right to claim the post of Head Master. In 1995, the Petitioner was holding the charge of the post of the Head Master. At that time also, he had in writing, informed the Management that he was not in a position to do the work of Head Master and therefore, he was voluntarily relinquishing his claim to the post of Head Master. Therefore, on 12.9.2005, the Petitioner had submitted application and requested for demotion. Despite this, the Management has not taken action nor demoted the Petitioner. This itself shows that the Management was not against the Petitioner. Thus, it is seen that on two earlier occasions including 12.9.2005, the Petitioner of his own free will, had in writing voluntarily applied for demotion. In fact, if the Management wanted to remove the Petitioner from the post of Head Master, the Respondent Institution would have allowed the application of the Petitioner dated 12.9.2005 for demotion. However, no action 6 wp-4863-09 was taken by the Management on the application of the Petitioner dated 12.9.2005. This in fact, shows that the Management did not have any bias against the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the letter dated 12.9.2005 was taken from him forcibly or under duress or coercion or threats by the Management. It is clear that the letter dated 12.9.2005 was given by the Petitioner of his own free will. Thus, earlier correspondence of the Petitioner shows that he had applied to the Management on two occasions for demotion. Looking to the material on record, the conclusion of the School Tribunal that the Petitioner failed to prove that the letter dated 7.8.2007 was obtained from the Petitioner by the Management under threats and thereby reverted the Petitioner from the post of Head Master to the post of Assistant Teacher, cannot be faulted with. 8. Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]