LPA--620/2017. Case: ANIRUDH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | LPA--620/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | November 30, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 30.11 + LPA 620/2017 & CM NO. 34163/2017 (condonation of delay
193 days in filing of appeal)
ANIRUDH KUMAR PANDEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Tenzing Thinlay Advocate.
versus
MANAGEMENT OF MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. along with Mr. B.C. Pandey, Mr. Kamrah, Mr. Rupal Lutara and Abhinandan, Advocates respondent No. 1 and respondent
-
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for along with Mr. Akshay Advocate for Directorate Education/R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
-
Vide this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order
27.01.2017 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
6873/2008 set aside the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal
26.08.2008, holding that the appellant’s resignation dated became final on being accepted by the Managing Committee on itself and the appellant could not have withdrawn his resignation subsequent letters since the letters of withdrawal were written after acceptance of the resignation by the respondent no.1/School.
-
Undisputed facts show that the appellant was in the employment School since 04.10.1994 as TGT (Music). While on duty on 11.09.2000, was handed over a memo dated 09.09.2000 with regard to the charges outraging the modesty of girl students and misbehaving with lady He was directed to submit his explanation within 24 hours. Instead submitting the explanation within 24 hours, the appellant submitted resignation dated 12.09.2000, resigning from his service with 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 who accorded the approval on 15.11.2000. The services of the were dispensed with by the School w.e.f. 12.09.2000.
-
The appellant had challenged the said termination of the service way of the Appeal No. 25/2000 before the Delhi School Tribunal. Tribunal, thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings before it, considered issue relating to the date of acceptance of the resignation i.e. whether accepted on 12.09.2000 or 15.11.2000 and the issue whether the was forced to resign on 12.09.2000 or he had submitted his resignation
12.09.2000 voluntarily. The Tribunal, after considering the addressed and the documents placed before it, reached to the conclusion that before the resignation could have been approved by the DoE in Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the appellant withdrawn his resignation and therefore, the respondent no. 1/School directed to reinstate the appellant w.e.f. 12.09.2000. No findings issue whether the appellant was forced to submit his resignation or not given by the Tribunal.
-
The respondent No. 1/School challenged the findings of the in W.P(C) No. 6873/2008. The Single Judge passed the following
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.
-
Writ petition is therefore allowed as stated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”
-
The first and foremost argument of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, counsel of the appellant is that the resignation was not voluntary but extracted under coercion and duress. The appellant had also filed a complaint on 09.09.2000. It is further argued that the fact that the gave only 24 hours to reply the show cause notice dated 09.09.2000 upon him on 11.09.2000, itself shows that undue pressure was The appellant intended to give a reply dated 12.09.2000 to the show notice but the School Management refused to accept it. It is argued acceptance of the resignation by the Managing Committee within
hours of its submission shows the element of force and coercion which played upon him for extracting the resignation. The appellant filed a police complaint on 12.09.2000 itself and withdrew his vide his letters dated 17.09.2000, 19.09.2000 and 28.09.2000.
-
Mr. Aggarwal further argued that the resignation was withdrawn by the appellant before the approval given by the DoE. The resignation was validly withdrawn in terms of Rule 114A. It is further argued terms of Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the can be said to have been validly accepted only after the approval is accorded by the DoE. The acceptance of the letter of resignation by the Committee alone without the approval of the Director, is not a acceptance. It is argued that before the approval was granted by DoE 15.11.2000, the appellant had withdrawn his resignation letter vide its letters dated 17.09.2000, 19.09.2000 and 28.09.2000 and hence the termination his services by the School is illegal and the learned Single Judge has erred in holding otherwise. It is further argued that the resignation is a matter intention i.e. a complete intention to relinquish and that the sequence events in this case clearly shows that the appellant had no such intentions. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down
another Single Judge Bench of this Court in Mala Tandon Thukral Director of Education in W.P.(C) No. 7356/2008; decided on Mr. Aggarwal further argued that the Managing Committee comprises only one person i.e. Manager of the School and she is not competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial