A resignation tendered and accepted under Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules is deemed effective if not opposed within 30 days by the Director of Education, even if coercion is later claimed.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the learned Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DST’) whereby the appeal bearing Appeal No.31/2013 filed by the respondent no.2/Sh. Babu Lal was allowed, and the office order dated 17.06.2009 vide which the promotion of respondent no.2 to the post of Office Superintendent was cancelled and acceptance of the resignation of respondent no.2 by the Sub-Committee of the petitioner school dated 26.08.2010, was set aside and the respondent no.2 was reinstated with immediate effect alongwith consequential benefits. Further, the petitioner school was directed to decide and pass a speaking order on the representation of respondent no.2 regarding back wages.

2. Briefly, the facts stated in the petition are as under:

a) It is stated that the respondent no.2 had joined the petitioner school as a Peon on 05.07.1991 and was confirmed after completing the probation in the year 1992. In the year 1996, the respondent no.2 was confirmed as an Office Assistant and was thereafter promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1997. In the year 2001, respondent no.2 was promoted to the post of Accountant. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 was promoted as Office Superintendent (Accounts) with the petitioner in the year 2008.

b) It is the case of the petitioner that on account of complaints against the respondent no.2, he was demoted by the petitioner on 17.06.2009. The petitioner got an audit conducted and vide Report dated 27.08.2009, the petitioner learnt that the respondent no.2 was involved in financial mismanagement/embezzlement of the funds of the petitioner school. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 26.10.2009 was issued to the respondent no.2. A reply dated 04.11.2009 to the said show cause notice was submitted by respondent no.2. Upon consideration of the reply, the petitioner deemed it fit to suspend respondent no.2 with immediate effect.

c) Assailing the suspension order dated 14.11.2009, the respondent no.2 preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 13566/2009, wherein vide order dated 03.12.2009, this Court had restrained the operation of the order of suspension. The petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had joined back its services, however on this issue, it appears there were a lot of disputes and differences between the parties. The same may not be germane to decide the present dispute.

d) Be that as it may, on 29.06.2010, the petitioner lodged a criminal complaint which was registered as FIR No.190/2010 with PS Punjabi Bagh arraigning respondent no.2 and Ms. Princee Kaur under Sections 420 /468/471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleging embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The issue pertaining to the registration of FIR is also not relevant to the present lis.

e) It is stated by the petitioner that respondent no.2 had submitted a typed resignation letter on 25.07.2010. Thereafter, a handwritten resignation letter dated 04.08.2010 was tendered by the respondent no.2. On 06.08.2010, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent no.1/Directorate of Education