Once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn, and the duty of the school to provide a safe environment for children.

Deepa Sharma, J.

1. Vide this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 27.01.2017 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6873/2008 set aside the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 26.08.2008, holding that the appellant’s resignation dated 12.09.2000 became final on being accepted by the Managing Committee on 12.09.2000 itself and the appellant could not have withdrawn his resignation by his subsequent letters since the letters of withdrawal were written after the acceptance of the resignation by the respondent no.1/School.

2. Undisputed facts show that the appellant was in the employment of School since 04.10.1994 as TGT (Music). While on duty on 11.09.2000, he was handed over a memo dated 09.09.2000 with regard to the charges for outraging the modesty of girl students and misbehaving with lady teachers. He was directed to submit his explanation within 24 hours. Instead of submitting the explanation within 24 hours, the appellant submitted his resignation dated 12.09.2000, resigning from his service with immediate effect. The said resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee of the respondent No.1/School on the same date and it was sent for the approval of the Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as “DoE”) on 15.09.2000 who accorded the approval on 15.11.2000. The services of the appellant were dispensed with by the School w.e.f. 12.09.2000.

3. The appellant had challenged the said termination of the service by way of the Appeal No. 25/2000 before the Delhi School Tribunal. The Tribunal, thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings before it, considered the issue relating to the date of acceptance of the resignation i.e. whether it was accepted on 12.09.2000 or 15.11.2000 and the issue whether the appellant was forced to resign on 12.09.2000 or he had submitted his resignation on 12.09.2000 voluntarily. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments addressed and the documents placed before it, reached to the conclusion that before the resignation could have been approved by the DoE in terms of Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the appellant had withdrawn his resignation and therefore, the respondent no. 1/School was directed to reinstate the appellant w.e.f. 12.09.2000. No findings on the issue whether the appellant was forced to submit his resignation or not was given by the Tribunal.

4. The respondent No. 1/School challenged the findings of the Tribunal in W.P(C) No. 6873/2008. The Single Judge passed the following order 27.01.2017:-

“7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 26.8.2008 is set aside by holding that in view of the specific language of Rule 114A the respondent no. 3’s resignation dated 12.9.2000 became final on being accepted by the Managing Committee on 12.9.2000 itself, and the respondent no. 3 thereafter could not have withdrawn his resignation by his letters dated 17.9.2000 (which was in fact a blank document sent under envelope to the petitioner no. 1/school on 12.9.2000. Also, I do not find that there could have been any reason for denial of the approval of resignation by the Director of Education because in fact after duly considering the stand of the respondent no. 3 of alleged forcible resignation, the Director of Education has given approval for acceptance of the resignation on account of there existing serious issues of respondent no. 3 outranging the modesty of minor girls studying in the petitioner no. 1/school and which approval of Director of Education will relate back to 12.9.2000 when the resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee of the petition no.1/school.

8. Writ petition is therefore allowed as stated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

5. The first and foremost argument of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel of the appellant is that the resignation was not voluntary but it was extracted under coercion and duress. The appellant