:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1366 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1366 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1366 OF 2009 The Deccan Education Society ..Petitioner versus 1. Rajendra Vijay Kulkarni 2. The Head Master / Head Mistress, Petro Chemicals Pre-Primary & Primary School, Dist: Raigad ..Respondents Mr. V. D. Borwankar for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2 The petitioner has challenged the Order of the School Tribunal dated 1.9.2004, by which the learned School Tribunal has allowed the respondent No.1’s appeal against his termination. 3. The learned School Tribunal has allowed the respondent No.1’s appeal against termination holding that the termination of the respondent No.1 from services w.e.f. 5.10.2002 is hereby set aside. The :2: School Tribunal has further directed reinstatement with back wages payable within a month. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 submitted his resignation on 5.9.2002 which he later on retracted on 6.2.2003. According to the petitioner, the resignation was genuine and the Tribunal ought not to have treated it as a forced resignation and therefore an illegal termination. It must be noted that the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 was forced to resign is a finding of fact which appears to be based on oral evidence. The Tribunal has found that respondent No.1’s resignation was a result of an incident in which one Mr. Apte, Finance Felicitator had asked clarification of the respondent No. 1 in regard to certain accounts. According to the petitioner when the respondent No.1 was caught red-handed on the basis of certain signatures and confronted, he confessed his guilt. The Tribunal has held that it is not possible to believe the petitioner’s version that on being caught red-handed, the respondent No.1 confessed his guilt. More important after this incident on 5.9.2002, the respondent No.1 is found to have continued to serve the Institution. The :3: Tribunal has noted that the respondent No.1 gave a notice to the petitioner to produce the muster roll, pay sheets, service book to establish this point. However, the petitioner did not produce those books which led the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner. The adverse inference thus drawn by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and cannot be faulted with. 5. The finding of the Tribunal that the resignation was not a genuine resignation but was forced upon the petitioner, is a finding of fact which is based on evidence. Merely because another view is possible it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere with such a finding in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. There is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)