( 1 ) THE petitioner no. 1 is hon. Secretary of Mistry High School, ratnagiri. The petition questions the legality and validity of the order of the School tribunal, Mumbai, dated 30-04-1993. By the impugned order, the School Tribunal has held that the respondent has not voluntarily resigned and that, in any case, the resignation has been accepted by the wrong authority. In this view of the matter, the School Tribunal has set aside the said resignation and directed reinstatement of the respondent with back wages.

( 2 ) THE respondent was employed as an Asstt. Teacher in the petitioner-school. It appears that he wrote the letter of resignation dated 05-09-1990. He tendered it on 18-12-1990 with an intention that it take effect from June, 1991. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal before the School tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order. The learned School tribunal took the view that the resignation letter was obtained under duress by the management of the school in that the respondent was threatened by the Headmaster and some others that if he did not resign, he would be killed. This appears to be based solely on a criminal complaint made by the respondent to the Court of the Magistrate at solapur on 05-03-1991 alleging that on 03- 02-1991 at about 10 p. m. he was threatened. It is surprising to note that the learned School tribunal has relied on the averments in the complaint in spite of it having brought to its notice that the complaint was dismissed under section 203 of the Cr. P. C. on 28-02-1992. In my view, this approach has resulted in perversity. Indeed, mere filing of a complaint regarding coercion cannot be taken into account without having regard to whether the complaint had any substance or not.

( 3 ) MR. Nalavade, learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the order of the School Tribunal suffers from a gross error of law in that the Tribunal has not taken into account several documents which show how the respondent is said to have misconducted himself with a girl student whom he used to teach at home. These documents which contain serious allegations of misconduct and which are listed at exh. I-1 have not even been referred to by the tribunal. Indeed, the complaint of the girl makes very unsavoury reading and shows conduct unbefitting that of a teacher. It appears that after the girl's letter dated 27- 08-1990, the respondent drafted his letter of resignation dated 05-09-1990 and tendered it on 18-12-1990.

( 4 ) MR. Kudle, learned counsel for (he respondent submitted that the events would show that the letter was not tendered as alleged by the petitioners. However, this submission does not take into account the fact that the inward register, which is also ignored by the Tribunal, shows that the letter of resignation was indeed tendered on 18-12- 1990 vide exh. 'b' to the petition. Another important document which has been ignored by the Tribunal and which has a bearing whether the resignation was voluntary or not is the pay-sheet of January, 1991 at exh. 'c' in which the respondent is said to have endorsed the fact that he has resigned. In june, 1991, he is said to have endorsed the fact that he has resigned with effect from the next academic year i. e. June, 1991. A perusal of the attendant circumstances leads to the strong conclusion that the respondent resigned voluntarily and on his own accord in order to avoid acquiring a bad reputation. It is not necessary to dilate on this aspect further. It must, however, be pointed out that i he Tribunal has ignored relevant and crucial documents which has resulted in a perverse finding of fact that the respondent did not resign voluntarily. This finding is, therefore, set aside.

( 5 ) THE other reason given by the tribunal, viz. , that the respondent's resignation was accepted by the School committee and not by the management is equally untenable. It is obvious from the record that the decision to accept the respondent's resi