IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant s acceptance of voluntary retirement of the respondent No. 1 from post of Principal of college was not validly done as per Rules and the Educational Appellate Tribunal was right in entertaining appeal and allowing it and High Court was right in affirming it but the relief of reinstatement needs modification by award of compensation and costs in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

Headnote:(i) Triple Benefit Scheme Rules-Rule 50(5)-Voluntary retirement of employees of the aided educational institutions on completion of 20 years of qualifying service or after 16.1.1985 -Respondent No. 1 was the Principal of the appellant society s college at Bangalore-Respondent No. 1 sought voluntary retirement on medical and personal reasons "at the earliest" by two letters dated 2.12.1994 and 5.7.1995-But resumed duties after intimation on 19.7.95 on student s and public demand to control law and order problem in college-College authorities though ignored 1st letter but recommended to retire the respondent No. 1 on medical ground on both the letters on 14.7.95-No approval taken from State Govt. or Accountant General as required under Rule-Whether appellant s acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the respondent No. 1 was validly done? (No, for two reasons) (See Paras 10 to 17)-The impugned order was neither under nor in accordance with Triple Benefit Scheme Rules.
       (ii) Karnataka Education Act, 1963-Sections 96 and 94-Dispute as to request of voluntary retirement by respondent-Appellant took unilateral action against Triple Benefit Scheme Rules-Educational Appellate Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act-Whether competent under Section 94 of the Act to entertain the appeal from the order accepting resignation to seek voluntary retirement by respondent No. 1? (Yes).
       Held : This brings us to the second question namely whether the appeal by the respondent No.1 was maintainable before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was set up by the State Government under Section 96 of the Act for the purposes of adjudicating appeals preferred under the Act. Section 94 which is the provision relating to appeals allows any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution who has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within three months from the date of the communication of such order. There is no argument that the appeal of the appellant was barred by limitation. The question then is - did the impugned order of the appellant amount to a dismissal or removal within the meaning of Section 94? The impugned order was, as held earlier, not one under or in accordance with the Scheme. The appellant lost sight of the fact that Rule 50 (5) was part of a scheme the express object of which was to benefit the employee and not the employer. The element of voluntariness attaching to the cesser of the respondent No.1 s services when the impugned order was passed was entirely lacking. The result of the impugned order was an immediate cessation of the respondent No. 1 s services as Principal of the appellants college dehors the Scheme. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the impugned order amounted to a removal within the meaning of Section 94 of the Act and the Respondent No.1 s appeal was, therefore, maintainable. (Para 19)
       (iii) Service Jurisprudence-Education-Voluntary retirement-Request not accepted as per Triple Benefit Scheme Rules-Sought to be withdrawn-Not allowed-Incumbent sent to take charge-Appeal to Apex Court-Acceptance of voluntary requirement found invalid and appeal to Educational Tribunal against it maintainable-Tribunal allowing appeal ordering reinstatement-Whether appellant s appeal be dismissed reinstating the respondent 1 or appeal be dismissed granting respondent 1 compensation in lieu of reinstatement? (The later)-Appeal dismissed accordingly with costs.
       Held : Ordinarily having reached this conclusion, we would have merely dismissed the appeal, but having regard to the submissions made by counsel on either sides, we feel that it would be more appropriate to mould the relief granted by the High Court to the respondent. The respondent himself had decided to retire for compelling personal reasons. In fact, he had been on long leave prior to the second notice asking for permission to voluntarily retire. He had agreed to continue for the time being at the instance of others in the interest of the institution. The appellant has in the meantime replaced the respondent with another Principal who has been serving for the last 7 years apparently to the satisfaction of the appellant and without any complaint. It is also not the respondent s case that the present incumbent is incompetent or has not discharged his duties during this period with dedication and commitment. On the other hand the replacement of the present incumbent by the respondent may, given the history of this litigation, create an atmosphere of discord and confrontation, which would not benefit the institution at all. It would, in the circumstances, be in the interest of all the protagonists to allow the present incumbent to continue while compensating the respondent for the incorrect action taken by the appellant against him. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with the direction that the respondent will not be reinstated in service but be treated to have retired from service as indicated in the order impugned before the Tribunal and the appellant shall pay to the respondent a sum equivalent to three years salary as last drawn by the respondent as Principal of the College by way of compensation. Such payment shall be made within eight weeks from today. The appellant will also pay the respondent the costs of this appeal assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only). (Paras 20 and 21)

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-The respondent No.1 was the Principal of the appellant society s college at Bangalore. He sent a letter on 2.12.1994 to the appellant stating that he was unable to continue as Principal of the College due to his ill-health. He therefore requested the appellant "to accord necessary permission to take voluntary retirement at the earliest and oblige". No period of notice was mentioned by the respondent No.1 in this letter. The appellant did not reply nor did it take any action on the letter. On the other hand on 1.7.1995 the respondent No.1 was requested by the appellant to visit six institutions of the appellant at least once in three months and to submit reports regarding ways and means to improve the academic standard of the institutions.

2. On 5.7.1995 the respondent No.1 submitted a second letter of voluntary retirement to the appellant. It was said in the letter:

"I am severely hit by ill-health and misfortune. As a result, I have been undergoing both physical and mental agony, since long time.

I do not wish to cause any problem to the Society or any individual".

3. For these reasons the respondent No.1 stated that he wished to resign from various posts held by him in the appellant-society and to take voluntary retirement as Principal of the appellant s college at Bangalore and that he "may kindly be permitted to take voluntary retirement at the earliest".

4. A few days later, on 14.7.1995 the Board of Life Members of the appellant with reference to the letters dated 2.12.1984 and 5.7.1995 sent by the respondent No.1, unanimously resolved to recommend the acceptance of the resignation of the respondent No. 1 from the various posts and also to permit the respondent No.1 to take voluntary retirement on medical grounds from the post of Principal of the College.

5. On 19.7.1995 the respondent No.1 resumed his duties as Principal. He says that he found that there was a law and order problem in the college campus with outsiders seeking to interfere with the Admissions Committee. According to the respondent No.1, in order to take the situation under control and also to respect the appeals from students, their parents, colleagues, and public at large, he had resumed his duties. He sent a letter on 19.7.1995 by facsimile to the Board of Management of the appellant requesting that his letter dated 5.7.1995 be kept in abeyance. That the letter was received by the Board of Management is not in dispute. But it was not considered when the Board of Management met on the same day to consider the recommendation of the Board of Life Members relating to the respondent No. 1 s letter dated 2.12.1994 and 5.7.1995. The reason given for not considering the respondent No.1 s request dated 19.7.1995 was that "it did not establish that there has been a material change in circumstances". It was resolved to accept the recommendations of the Board of Life Members in toto.

6. On 20.7.1995 the Chairman, Board of Management issued a memorandum to the respondent No. 1 with reference to his letters dated 2.12.1994 and 5.7.1995, stating that both the Board of Life Members and the Board of Management had resolved to accept the respondent No.1 s resignation/voluntary retirement and to relieve the respondent No.1 from his services forthwith. The memorandum went on to state:

"In view of the resolutions passed by the Board of Life Members and Board of Management, your further request dated 19th July, 1995 for keeping the voluntary retirement in abeyance has not been considered."

7. By another order passed on the same day the Chairman transferred a senior grade lecturer from the appellant s college at Belgaon to take over immediately the post of Principal of the Bangalore College in place of the respondent No. 1. The lecturer from Belgaon assumed charge as Principal in Bangalore on 22.7.1995.

8. The respondent No.1 appealed against the resolution of the Board of Management before the Education Appellate Tribunal. While the appeal was pending, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document