IMPORTANT POINT
Resignation – As per Service Jurisprudence, employment is terminated from the date on which letter of resignation is accepted by appropriate authority – Resignation would be effective on its acceptance even if acceptance is not communicated as long as rules or guidelines governing resignation do not mandate such acceptance of resignation is to be communicated.

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 writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Ld. School Tribunal (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.

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 It was also contended that he had withdrawn his resignation, and as such respondents could not have prevented him from joining to his duties.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, 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 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