Non-communication of acceptance of resignation does not invalidate the resignation, and the resignation becomes effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated, as long as there is no rule requiring communication of acceptance for the resignation to become effective.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners i.e. the Management and the School have challenged judgment and order dated 25/01/2019, passed by the School Tribunal, amravati, whereby oral termination of service of respondent No.1 has been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to reinstate him with 50% back-wages, along with other consequential benefits.

3. In the present case, the respondent No.1 was working in the petitioner No.2-school as an assistant Teacher. On 10/10/2017, the respondent submitted his resignation from the said post. It was the case of the respondent that subsequently on 25/10/2017, he withdrew his resignation by a letter, which he posted on 03/11/2017. He claimed that on 23/11/2017, he went to the school to resume his service when the Headmaster of the petitioner No.2 school did not allow him to sign on the muster role and that subsequently on 27/11/2017, he received a letter stating that he was relieved from his service. It was the case of the respondent that since he had withdrawn his resignation, the petitioners could not have prevented him from joining his duties and since he was prevented from performing his duties, it was a case of the otherwise termination of service or oral termination of his service.

4. The respondent filed appeal under Section 9 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). In the appeal, the respondent stated the facts as noted hereinabove and after referring to the relevant provisions of the MEPS act and Rules, he claimed that the communications issued by the petitioners illegally relieving him from service and all connected documents therewith were an afterthought and accordingly, his oral termination of service deserved to be set aside.

5. The petitioners filed their written statement before the Tribunal and stated that the School Committee had received the resignation letter of the respondent. In the context of the said resignation letter, the Executive Committee of the petitioner No.1 management had resolved to accept the same, pursuant to which the School Committee also passed a resolution and accordingly, the resignation of the respondent was accepted. On this basis, it was submitted that the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

6. In the impugned judgment and order dated 25/01/2019, passed by the Tribunal, the pleadings and documents on record were considered. Upon an analysis of the same, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent had lawfully withdrawn his resignation and that resolutions upon which the petitioners placed reliance were manufactured documents and that, therefore, the appeal deserved to be allowed. accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the respondent was granted relief, as noted above.

7. Mrs. Radhika Raskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal committed a grave error in appreciating the pleadings and documents on record. It was submitted that the Tribunal read the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners in a truncated manner and if the same had been read in totality, the Tribunal would not have rendered adverse findings against the petitioners. It was submitted that the Tribunal erred in drawing adverse inferences against the petitioners because copies of resolutions of the management and the School Committee were not filed along with the written statement. Such documents were indeed placed before the Tribunal at the stage of recording evidence and, therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal were erroneous. In respect of the resignation letter submitted by the respondent No.1, attention of this Court was invited to Section 7 of the MEPS act and Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules, which govern the procedure regarding