Shriram Manohar Bande vs Uktranti Mandal

2024 INSC 337 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._________ OF 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 21401 of 2022)

SHRIRAM MANOHAR BANDE …APPELLANT

VERSUS

UKTRANTI MANDAL & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated

02.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.1976 of 2019, whereby the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Date: 2024.04.25 14:06:01 IST Reason:

Order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Ld. School Tribunal

1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), Amravati whereunder

termination of respondent No.1 (appellant herein) had been set

aside and directed the reinstatement with 50% back wages and

other consequential benefits came to be set aside has challenged

the same. Parties are referred to as per their rank/status in writ

court.

Facts in Brief:

4. Respondent No.1 is an educational society that runs

Respondent No.2 i.e., Vasantrao Naik High School which runs on

a grant-in-aid basis. The appellant came to be appointed as an

Assistant Teacher and was discharging his duties accordingly. The

appellant tendered his resignation from the said post on

10.10.2017. However, vide letter dated 25.10.2017, he withdrew

his resignation by posting said letter on 03.11.2017. The appellant

claimed that on 23.11.2017, he went to the school to resume his

service, which is when he was denied signing on the muster roll

by the Headmaster of Respondent No.2 and on 27.11.2017, the

appellant received a letter stating that he was relieved from his

service.

2

5. Against his termination, the appellant approached the

Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation

Act, 1977, and Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as

MEPS Act and Rules) by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the

MEPS Act contending inter alia that the communication issued

by the respondents relieving him from service was illegal and all

connected documents therewith were fabricated and merely an

afterthought. It was also contended that he had withdrawn his

resignation, and as such respondents could not have prevented

him from joining to his duties. Appellant also contended that he

had not received any formal communication from respondents of

the acceptance of his resignation. Hence, he prayed for the order

of termination of service to be set aside.

6. Respondents in their written statement contended that the

School Committee had received the resignation letter of the

appellant and pursuant to the same Respondent No.1 –

management had passed a resolution of accepting the resignation.

It was the case of the respondents that acceptance of the

resignation was communicated to the appellant. On the contrary, 3 appellant contended that the resolutions passed by the School

Committee were back-dated and it was fabricated only to show

compliance with due process.

7. The Tribunal upon perusal of the pleadings and documents

on record concluded that the appellant had indeed withdrawn his

resignation lawfully and the respondents with a mala fide intent

had fabricated the documents i.e., the resolutions of the

Committee wherein the resignation was accepted. Accordingly,

the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 25th January 2019, set

aside the termination of the appellant, declaring it to be

unlawfully done.

8. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order of the

Tribunal dated 25th January 2019, the Respondents approached

the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition

No.1976 of 2019 contending that Tribunal had erroneously

discarded the resolution dated 13.10.2017 passed by the School

Management. They further contended that Tribunal had

committed an error by holding that resolution was an afterthought

of the management; it was also contended that Tribunal discarded

4 the vital document filed on record, leading to a mistake that needs

to be corrected in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The

Respondents also contended that appellant was granted 50% back

wages by the Tribunal without pleading or proof of his

employment during the period he was out of service. Lastly, it

was contended that Tribunal had not given a single reason for its

assessment of back wages without any pleading or proof.

9. The High Court concluded that there was material on

record to show that the resignation tendered by the appellant was

indeed accepted as per the resolution passed by Respondent No.2

and there was statutory compliance with the requirements under

the MEPS Act and Rules. The plea of the appellant that

acceptance of his resignation was never communicated to him

and thereby termination was illegal, was not accepted by the High

Court by observing that non-communication would not make the

resolution inoperative. The High Court observed that the MEPS

Act and Rules do not stipulate the resignation would come into

effect only after its acceptance is communicated to an employee.

The High Court also ruled that conclusion arrived at by the

Tribunal regarding the documents being fabricated had no basis 5 and was without any evidence to that effect and resultantly, High

Court set aside the findings of the Tribunal and found the

judgment of the Tribunal to be unsustainable and as such allowed

the writ petition as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the Order of

the High Court, appellant is before us.

Contentions of the parties:

10. We have heard Ms. Sweta Rani, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, and Mr. Sunil Murarka, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents.

10.1 It is the contention of Ms. Sweta Rani, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant that High Court committed an error in

setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal by not

appreciating the fact that only the management committee could

have taken a decision and the school committee had no power to

consider the same under the MEPS Act and Rules made

thereunder. She would further contend that High Court erred in

not considering the inconsistent plea put forward by the

management with reference to the approval of the resignation

namely in one breath it was contended that the school committee

6 approved the resignation and, in another breath, it was contended

that management committee approved the resignation. It is also

contended that High Court erred in not appreciating that the

resolution dated 13.10.2017 is a manufactured document as

rightly noticed by the Tribunal. She would further elaborate her

submissions by contending that the resignation letter dated

10.10.2017 had been undisputedly withdrawn by communication

dated 25.10.2017 and non-considering of this vital aspect has

resulted in the miscarriage in the administration of justice.

10.2 Per contra, Shri Sunil Murarka, learned counsel appearing

for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by supporting the impugned order

and praying for dismissal of the appeal has contended that

Tribunal had erred in drawing adverse inferences vis-à-vis with

reference to copies of the resolutions of the management and the

school committee as not having been filed along with written

statement, though those documents were indeed placed before the

Tribunal at the stage of recording the evidence and this fact was

taken note off by the High Court. He would contend that mandate

of Section 7 of the MEPS Act read with Rule 40 of the Rules was

fully satisfied and contrary attempt by the employee that 7 resignation letter had been withdrawn would not be immune to

his benefit in the backdrop of the said resignation having already

been accepted by the management.

10.3 He further contended that written statement filed by the

respondent would clearly show that the resignation of the

appellant was firstly accepted by the management committee by

resolution dated 13.10.2017 and only thereafter by the school

committee on 14.10.2017 which was evidenced from records. He

emphasized that Paragraph 10 of the written statement makes a

mention of the resolution dated 13.10.2017, therefore, it cannot

be said that the resolution dated 13.10.2017 is an afterthought

merely because it was not annexed along with the written

statement and only produced during the course of the evidence.

He also contended that resignation was voluntary and the same

came to be accepted by the management committee and school

committee respectively which was communicated to the appellant

on 16.10.2017, and therefore appellant was estopped by his own

conduct from claiming that the resignation tendered was

withdrawn before its acceptance. Hence, he prayed for dismissal

of the appeal.

8 Discussion and Analysis:

11 Against the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, and

contentions raised by the learned counsel, we now proceed to

examine the findings of the courts below in contrast to the

relevant provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules. The appellant’s

case, in brief, is that there was non-compliance with the

provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules made thereunder which

provides for proper acceptance of a resignation. The appellant has

strenuously contended that resolution dated 13.10.2017 passed by

the management committee was a manufactured/fabricated

document. On the contrary, the respondents submit that there is

no strict rule which prescribes that resignation has to be accepted

by the management committee only, and the same should not be

considered by the school committee. It was also submitted that

the MEPS Act and Rules do not lay down any strict rules with

regard to the communication of acceptance of resignation.

12 Upon careful consideration of the factual background, the

findings of the Tribunal, and the reasoning of the High Court for

9 reversing the findings of the Tribunal, we have identified two

questions for consideration before us:

I. Whether the appellant is justified in claiming that

the resolution dated 13.10.2017 is a ‘manufactured’

document by the respondent?

II. Whether there is any non-compliance with the

provisions under the MEPS Act and Rules in

acceptance of the resignation letter of the appellant?

Answer: Both the questions are in the negative for following

reasons:

RE: Issue No.1

13 It would be necessary for us to examine the issue of

whether the resolution dated 13.10.2017 is a

manufactured/fabricated document as claimed by the appellant, as

the Tribunal had set aside the termination order on the basis that

resolution dated 13.10.2017 was an afterthought and was created

by the respondents only to show compliance with the provisions

of MEPS Act and Rules. The Tribunal’s conclusion for holding

the resolutions to be fabricated document was based on the

pleadings of the respondents in the written statement filed before

10 the Tribunal, wherein at Paragraph 6 of the written statement, the

respondent had stated that the school committee decided on the

resignation which was thereafter approved by the management

and it had failed to place on record the resolution along with its

written statement. However, it is to be noted that the Tribunal had

completely overlooked and ignored the additional information in

Paragraph 10 namely in the subsequent part of the written

statement, whereunder the detailed steps taken by the respondents

after receiving the resignation letter have been enumerated. It

would be apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the

written statement of the respondents.

“10. Additional information: - The appellant is trying to take undue advantage of communications made by the respondent no.2. It is submitted that as soon as the appellant tended his resignation before the respondent no.2, it was placed before the executive committee of the society, in turn the society has resolved to accept the resignation and in the same it was decided that the same resolution is to be passed in school committee. Accordingly, the directions of the management were compiled by passing a resolution in the school committee. It is obvious that acceptance of resignation firstly was made by the management and the said decision is accepted by the school committee later on. Therefore, nothing is wrong in it.”

14 A bare perusal of the pleadings in Paragraph 10 of the

written statement would make it abundantly clear that the school

11 committee upon receipt of the resignation letter had placed it

before the executive committee, which in turn had resolved by

resolution dated 13.10.2017 to accept the resignation and in the

same resolution it was also resolved to be passed by the school

committee, and accordingly the school committee had passed the

resolution dated 14.10.2017. This plea received in the written

statement reflects that respondents had specifically pleaded that

the management committee was the first one to accept the

resolution and only thereafter the school committee had passed its

resolution dated 14.10.2017. Further, it is important to note that

the document in question was placed before the Tribunal at the

stage of evidence, which is an admitted fact. Hence, it was wholly

erroneous for the Tribunal to conclude that merely because the

document and records were in possession of the management,

they would have prepared or fabricated such record. The

circumstances analyzed by the Tribunal for arriving at this

finding and the reasons arrived thereunder is in complete

ignorance of plea raised in Paragraph 10 of the respondent's

written statement and hence it is an apparent error on the face of

record. The High Court has thus rightly appreciated the pleadings

12 and documents on record to conclude that Tribunal committed an

error by holding that documents were manufactured without any

appropriate reasons or sufficient evidence to the said effect, more

so when there was an explicit mention of the resolution passed by

the management in Paragraph 10 of the written statement.

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided against the appellant, thereby

holding that the resolution dated 13.10.2017 is not a

‘manufactured’ document and upholding the findings of the High

Court on this aspect.

RE: Issue No.2

15. The resolution dated 13.10.2017 having been accepted as

a valid document to determine the case at hand, it is now

necessary to see whether there has been any non-compliance with

the provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules while accepting the

resignation of the appellant and thereby terminating his services.

One of the main grounds for challenging the impugned judgment

by the appellant was that only management could have accepted

the resignation and taken a decision on the resignation letter dated

10.10.2017, and the school committee lacked the power to

13 consider the same, and hence it was in violation of the provisions

of the MEPS Act and Rules. It would be pertinent to note that

High Court has rightly rejected said contention by discussing in

detail the functions to be performed by the school committee as

laid out under Schedule ‘A’ to the MEPS Act and Rules. The

functions to be performed by the school committee are as

prescribed under Clause 3, which include the appointment of

employees, other than head of the school. It is worthy to note,

that appellant himself had addressed his resignation letter to the

school committee, however, the school committee placed it

before the management, upon which the management committee

passed a resolution dated 13.10.2017, accepting the resignation. It

is only after the acceptance of the resignation by the

management, the school committee on 14.10.2017 passed the

resolution accepting the resignation letter. It is equally important

to note that School Committee consists of four representatives of

the management, including the President of the Governing Body

and one member from amongst permanent teachers, with the head

of the school being ex-officio secretary of the committee.

Therefore, it is evident that management was indeed involved in

14 the process of considering and accepting the resignation letter.

Appellant has failed to convince this Court that there was any

error in the findings of the High Court on this ground.

16. It would be apposite for us to look into the provisions

under the MEPS Act and Rules which enumerate the procedure

for resignation by an employee of a private school. The relevant

provisions i.e., Section 7 of the MEPS Act which is reproduced

below for reference:

“7. Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools: If any employee intends to resign from his post in any private school, at any time after the appointed date, he shall draw up a letter of resignation in duplicate and sign both copies of that letter and put the date thereon. He may then forward one copy to the Management by registered post and keep the other copy with him.”

A bare perusal of Section 7 of the MEPS Act, the three-fold

requirements while tendering a resignation are stipulated for the

employee's advantage. It addresses the prescribed protocol for

submitting a letter of resignation. The purpose of this provision is

to protect employees from unethical practices, such as

management calling them in, pressurising or coercing them, or

offering them any form of inducement or incentive to sign blank

documents that may be used to draft resignation letters at a later

15 date or to terminate employees through deceptive means.

Therefore, it is imperative that an employee strictly adhere to the

favour of Section 7 it while submitting their resignation. The

employee forfeits the protections stipulated therein if he fails to

adhere to the prescribed procedure or acknowledge executing a

typewritten or printed letter of resignation and subsequently

admits to personally delivering or tendering the resignation to

management or doing so through a third party. Section 7 of the

MEPS Act is not applicable in such circumstance, and the

employee cannot invoke its protection to proclaim an unlawful

and involuntary resignation in violation of the provision. In the

present case, it is an admitted position that the employee

voluntarily tendered his resignation. Hence, we need not delve

into this aspect in depth.

17. The relevant Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules, also needs to be

considered, and is reproduced below:

RULE 40 OF THE MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1981

40. Resignation.-

(1) A permanent employee may leave service after giving three calendar months’ notice and a non-permanent employee may leave service after giving one calendar month’s notice. The Management may, however, allow an employee to leave service 16 earlier on payment of pay (excluding allowances) for three months, or as the case may be, one month in lieu of notice by the employee. The amount in lieu of notice shall be restricted to the pay for the period by which the notice period falls short. (2) If any Management allows an employee to leave service earlier either without due notice or without making payment of pay in lieu of notice as specified in sub-rule (1), a proportionate amount of pay in lieu of notice shall be deducted from the grant due to the school concerned.

(3) An employee entitled to vacation shall not give notice of resignation during the vacation or so as to cover any part of the vacation. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a month after the beginning of the first term of the year.

18. It is important to note that in Section 7 of MEPS Act, the

three-fold requirement to be fulfilled while tendering a

resignation is to protect the interest of the employee, whereas

Rule 40 of the Rules was introduced to safeguard the interests of

the Management, i.e., to enable the management to make

necessary arrangements to replace the existing employee. The

first part of Rule 40 (1) imposes a condition only upon the

employee while tendering a resignation, i.e., notice to the

Management. A permanent employee is required to give three-

calendar months’ notice, whereas a non-permanent employee has

to give a month’s notice. However, the second part of Rule 40 (1)

permits the Management to relieve an employee from his service

before the duration of the notice period by paying the employee

for the remaining duration of the notice period. On a holistic 17 reading of Rule 40, it can be concluded that Management is given

the authority to accept the resignation tendered prior to the

completion of the notice period and terminate the services of the

employee with payment in lieu of the remaining period. Further,

it is observed that Rule 40 has not prescribed any requirement or

obligation to be fulfilled by the management relating to

communication of acceptance of resignation to the employee, nor

the Rule would indicate that acceptance of resignation and

consequent termination of services of the employee would be

improper if such acceptance of resignation is not communicated

to the employee. In light of the intent and interpretation of the

relevant Section 7 of MEPS and Rule 40 of the Rules, we

conclude that the High Court was right in holding that mere non-

communication of acceptance of resignation to the employee

would not render the termination invalid. We answer the Issue in

the negative, thereby upholding the findings of the High Court.

19. In fact, there is no ground before us, which was not

already dealt with by the High Court in its reasoning and finding,

however, we have gone into the facts in detail and reviewed the

judgments of the courts below in quite detail only to satisfy our 18 conscience that no injustice has been meted out to appellant. We

now proceed to detail out the specific findings of the High Court

which dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant, which have

been reagitated before us.

20. It is to be noted that appellant was undergoing certain

marital disputes and has admitted to this effect that owing to his

difficulties in performing his duties, he tendered his resignation

on 10.10.2017. Before the Tribunal, appellant tried to take a stand

that he was pressurized into tendering his resignation, however,

the Tribunal specifically observed that the appellant never took

this stand in his resignation letter, and this plea was raised for the

first time before the Education Officer vide letter dated

13.12.2017. Appellant did not take this plea in any of the earlier

communications, and accordingly, Tribunal observed that

resignation was voluntary, and the submissions of pressurization

were vague. Appellant also stated that he had filed a leave

application on 10.10.2017, the same date as his resignation letter,

seeking leave from 01.11.2017 to 30.11.2017. However, the

Tribunal had brushed aside said contention of the appellant on the

19 ground that he never submitted any proof to show his bona fides

of having communicated the leave application, and Tribunal held

that Appellant had acted upon his resignation till his subsequent

communication. These observations of the Tribunal would go to

show the conduct of the appellant, and the attempts made by the

appellant to undo the voluntary decision to resign only post

acceptance of his resignation letter. Appellant himself has

admitted that he sought withdrawal of his resignation letter on

03.11.2017 only upon realizing his mistake. Tribunal and the

High Court have confirmed the fact that resignation was

voluntarily tendered by the appellant. The appellant has also

strenuously submitted that the acceptance of the resignation was

not communicated to him, and he submitted his letter seeking

withdrawal of resignation before the communication of

acceptance of the resignation. Hence, he contended that the

termination was invalid.

21. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to point out that as

per service jurisprudence, the employment is terminated from the

date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the

appropriate authority. The appellant, in this case, tendered his 20 resignation letter on 10.10.2017 and this resignation letter came

be accepted on 14.10.2017, hence the date of termination of the

services of the appellant for the purpose of adjudication would be

14.10.2017.

22. This Court in North Zone Cultural Centre and another

vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in (2003) 5 SCC 455 has

held that resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if

the acceptance is not communicated as long as rules or guidelines

governing the resignation do not mandate such acceptance of

resignation is to be communicated. In the North Zone (supra)

case, the employee who was a temporary Accountant tendered his

resignation from the post held by him on 18.11.1988. With effect

from the said date, the resignation was accepted by the Director

on the very same day with the endorsement "Accepted, hand over

charge". The employee vide Telegram on 21.11.1988 withdrew

his resignation stating that the same was obtained by pressure. He

was communicated vide letter dated 18.11.1988 regarding

acceptance of his resignation. The High Court allowed the writ

petition on two grounds; (i) the acceptance of resignation was not

21 communicated till the withdrawal and (ii) the employee was

permitted to attend the duty even after acceptance of resignation.

Setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court held that

non-communication of the acceptance does not make the

resignation inoperative provided, there is, in fact, an acceptance

before the withdrawal. It is also held that it is not open to the

public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by

the appropriate authority

23. As noticed by us above, Section 7 of the MEPS Act and

Rule 40 of the Rules does not impose any guidelines for

acceptance of the resignation upon the management. Hence, the

position of law laid down by this Court in North Zone (supra)

squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the

contention raised by the appellant about withdrawal of

resignation before communication of its acceptance does not hold

water.

24. We find no infirmity with the impugned judgment and it

does not merit any interference. In light of both the points

formulated having been answered in the negative, we affirm the

22 findings of the High Court and consequently dismiss the present

appeal with no order as to costs.

…...........….………………….J. (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha)

…...........….………………….J. (Aravind Kumar)

New Delhi, April 25, 2024

23