Case Note & Summary
The appellant, an assistant teacher at Vasantrao Naik High School run by respondent No.1 society, tendered resignation on 10.10.2017. He withdrew the resignation by letter dated 25.10.2017, posted on 03.11.2017. On 23.11.2017, he attempted to resume duty but was denied signing the muster roll, and on 27.11.2017 received a letter stating he was relieved. He challenged his termination before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Tribunal set aside the termination, holding that the resignation withdrawal was lawful and that the management's resolution accepting resignation was fabricated. The respondents (management) challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which allowed the writ petition, reinstating the termination. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed two issues: whether the resolution dated 13.10.2017 was manufactured, and whether there was non-compliance with MEPS Act and Rules. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove fabrication; the resolution was mentioned in the written statement and produced during evidence. On the second issue, the Court held that the MEPS Act and Rules do not require communication of acceptance to the employee for resignation to be effective. The resignation was accepted by the management committee on 13.10.2017, before the withdrawal letter of 25.10.2017, so withdrawal was not permissible. The High Court's judgment was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation - Acceptance - Communication - Under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and Rules - The court considered whether acceptance of resignation must be communicated to the employee to be effective. Held that the MEPS Act and Rules do not stipulate that resignation comes into effect only after communication of acceptance to the employee; non-communication does not make the resolution inoperative. (Paras 9, 11) B) Service Law - Resignation - Withdrawal - After Acceptance - Under MEPS Act and Rules - The court examined whether an employee can withdraw resignation after it has been accepted by the management committee. Held that once resignation is accepted by the management committee, withdrawal thereafter is not permissible; the employee is estopped from claiming that resignation was withdrawn before acceptance. (Paras 10.3, 12) C) Evidence - Fabricated Document - Burden of Proof - The court assessed whether the resolution dated 13.10.2017 was a manufactured document. Held that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fabrication; the appellant failed to produce evidence to show that the resolution was back-dated or fabricated, and the High Court correctly set aside the Tribunal's finding of fabrication. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resolution dated 13.10.2017 accepting resignation is a manufactured document; Whether there was non-compliance with MEPS Act and Rules in acceptance of resignation.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment setting aside the Tribunal's order. The termination of the appellant was valid.
Law Points
- Resignation acceptance by management committee is valid even if not communicated to employee
- Withdrawal of resignation after acceptance is not permissible
- School committee can also accept resignation if management committee delegates
- Non-communication of acceptance does not invalidate resignation
- Burden of proof on employee to show document is fabricated
