1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 /2008 (Santosh Ramkrishna Jagrut Vs. Aniket Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 1 st DECEMBER, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, on 17th September, 2007, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant on 1/11/1993 and thereafter, worked continuously on the said post till 30/4/1998. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not permitted to join his duties after 20/6/1998 and since this amounted to otherwise termination of the services of the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the termination with effect from 20/6/1998 in an appeal, before the School Tribunal, Amravati. The management denied the claim of the petitioner and also denied that the services of the 2 petitioner were otherwise terminated with effect from 20/6/1998. After admitting the fact that the petitioner was in service till 30/4/1998, it was submitted by the management that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted a resignation letter dated 1/2/1998 in his own handwriting. The resignation was accepted in the Executive Body Meeting and the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 30/4/1998. The relieving letter handed over by the management to the petitioner was also signed by the petitioner. In this background, the management sought for the dismissal of the appeal. After filing of the written statement by the management, the petitioner did not amend the appeal memo accordingly or also did not file any affidavit on record disputing the factum of resignation as pleaded by the management. It was, however, stated by the petitioner in the written notes of arguments that the resignation letter was fraudulently prepared by the management and the petitioner had not tendered any resignation to the management. Certain facts were stated in the written notes of arguments for the first time on 15/12/2005. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the School Tribunal, Amravati, by the impugned judgment dated 17th 3 September, 2007, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2007. The Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner had not challenged the statements of facts stated in the written statement by the management and had also not disputed the factum of the resignation. For the first time, by the written notes of arguments which was filed in the month of December, 2005, the petitioner tried to make an attempt so as to challenge/dispute the statements of facts in the written statement. The Tribunal rightly considered the fact that the petitioner had not come to the Tribunal with clean hands and had not stated the facts about the alleged resignation letter and withdrawal of the same by the petitioner, in the appeal memo. The Tribunal further considered the fact that the resignation letter was in the handwriting of the petitioner and the petitioner had also signed on the relieving letter which was issued to the petitioner on 30/4/1998. The petitioner had not denied that he had sent a resignation letter by Registered Post to the management and also not denied the fact that the management had communicated to the petitioner in writing that his 4 resignation letter was accepted with effect from 30/4/1998. On a perusal of the documents on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the services of the petitioner came to an end with effect from 30/4/1998 in view of the resignation letter dated 1/2/1998. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the petitioner had failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 20/6/1998 by an oral order. No fault whatsoever can be found with the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP