Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sayyed Maksood Ali Sayyed Roshid Ali, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 17-1-1985 and promoted as Head Master on 10-10-2004. He tendered his resignation on 12-1-2008, which was accepted by the Management (UrujEUrdu Education Society) on 10-2-2008. The petitioner claimed that he withdrew the resignation by letter dated 30-1-2008 sent by registered post, which was received by the Management on 7-2-2008, i.e., before the acceptance on 10-2-2008. He contended that the acceptance after receipt of withdrawal was illegal and amounted to otherwise termination. The School Tribunal, Amravati, dismissed his appeal (Appeal No.61 of 2008) holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the withdrawal letter was actually received by the Management before acceptance. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner did not examine the postal witness or produce the acknowledgment card to prove receipt. The court held that the burden was on the petitioner to prove receipt of withdrawal before acceptance, and the Tribunal's finding of fact was not perverse. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation - Withdrawal - Acceptance - The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher and Head Master, tendered resignation on 12-1-2008 which was accepted by the Management on 10-2-2008. The petitioner claimed to have withdrawn the resignation by letter dated 30-1-2008 received by Management on 7-2-2008. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the withdrawal was not proved to have been received before acceptance. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, holding that the burden was on the petitioner to prove receipt of withdrawal before acceptance, and that the Tribunal's finding of fact was not perverse. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Resignation - Withdrawal - Burden of Proof - The employee claiming withdrawal of resignation before its acceptance must prove that the withdrawal was communicated to and received by the employer prior to acceptance. Mere dispatch of withdrawal letter is insufficient; actual receipt before acceptance is necessary. (Paras 4-6) C) Service Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Findings of Fact - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the School Tribunal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's finding that the petitioner failed to prove receipt of withdrawal letter before acceptance was a pure finding of fact and not interfered with. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acceptance of resignation after receipt of withdrawal letter is illegal and amounts to otherwise termination under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal's order. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the withdrawal of resignation was received by the Management before acceptance. The Tribunal's finding of fact was not perverse and did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance
- Withdrawal after acceptance is ineffective
- Burden of proof on employee to show withdrawal before acceptance
- School Tribunal's findings of fact not interfered with in writ jurisdiction
