The employee's resignation was not a voluntary retirement and was unsustainable under Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06/12/2013 delivered by the School Tribunal, Latur by which Appeal No.1/2013 filed by respondent No.1 herein has been partly allowed and the acceptance of his voluntary retirement application dated 07/07/2005 by the petitioner/Management has been held to be illegal and therefore set aside.

3. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner employer is referred to as the Management, respondent No.1 original appellant is referred to as the employee and respondent No.4 who is the newly appointed person is referred to as respondent No.4 in this judgment

4. Respondent No.1/employee has been granted reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. A further direction is given by the Tribunal that if its judgment is not complied with, non salary grants of the Management would be withheld by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits as under :

(a) Respondent No.1/employee had joined services with the petitioner/Management as an “Instructor” on 24/08/1993 in the Marketing and Salesmanship subject.

(b) He was confirmed in employment on 15/06/1996

(c) On 16/02/2005, the Principal of the College received a communication from the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Purna Branch, stating therein that the employee has obtained a personal loan on the undertaking given by the Management and that the monthly installments are not being regularly deposited with the Bank.

(d) The Management, therefore, issued a letter dated 03/03/2005 to the employee calling upon him to explain about his conduct of affixing the signature of the Principal on the concerned form and as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him.

(e) On 07/03/2005, the employee submitted his explanation contending that his father was suffering from a heart ailment and as such, since he could not get the signature of the Principal on his loan application form, he affixed the signature of the Principal so as to rescue his father from the heart ailment and provide for his medical assistance.

(f) The Management decided to conduct a preliminary enquiry and as such a Committee was formed so as to conduct a preliminary investigation.

(g) The meeting of such Committee was posted on 01/05/2005 and the employee was present in the said meeting.

(h) In the preliminary enquiry, the employee was asked whether he had affixed the signature of the Principal and obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/. He answered in the affirmative.

(i) He also admitted that he had prepared a stamp of the Principal and the College by getting it manufactured at Nanded and had used the said stamp.

(j) In the proceedings held on 04/05/2005, the Enquiry Committee concluded that it appeared prima facie that the employee had committed a serious misconduct.

(k) On 07/07/2005, the employee tendered his resignation in his own handwriting and mentioned that his resignation may be accepted as being effective from 07/07/2005 itself.

(l) The employee was served with a letter dated 07/07/2005 informing him that his request for accepting the resignation from the same date, has been accepted and he stands relieved.

(m) The Management applied to the appropriate authority for filling in the said post from the Open Category as per the roaster.

(n) By communication dated 01/12/2006, respondent No.3 permitted the Management to fill in the post from the Open Category after considering the reservation roaster.

(o) Respondent No.4 herein has been therefore appointed in place of the respondent No.1/employee.

(p) By communication dated 06/05/2007, the employee paid his one month wages for an amount of Rs.10,613/ so as to complete the formality.

(q) By communication dated 11/07/2007, respondent No.3 authority sanctioned the interim payment of Rs.1,09,152/towards the Provident Fund benefits for being paid to the employee.

(r) The said amou