Nilesh S/O Dayaramji Khajone, ... vs Sarwdnya Bahuuddeshiya Sansta ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4242 Bom

wp.4796.08.jud                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2008


Nilesh s/o Dayaramji Khajone,
Aged 31 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Kakda, Tah. Achalpur,
District Amravati.                                                     .... Petitioner

       -- Versus -

01]    Sarwadnya Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
       through its President/Secretary,
       at Sindi Bk., Tah. Achalpur,
       District Amravati

02]    Head Master,
       Late Digambarrao Petkar Adiwasi Ashram Shala,
       Anjangaon Surji, Tah. Anjangaon Surji,
       District Amravati.

03]    Project Officer,
       Integrated Tribal Development Project,
       Dharni, District Amravati.

04]    Santosh Ramdas Lilhare,
       Major, R/o Sindi Bk. Tah. Achalpur,
       District Amravati.                                        .... Respondents


Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Apurv De, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.

                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.

                DATE            : JULY 10, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-

This petition takes an exception to the order dated

31/03/2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development, Amravati in Appeal No.27/2003 thereby quashing

and setting aside earlier order passed in an appeal preferred by

petitioner and rejecting the later appeal on merits.

02] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in

brief as under :

I. Petitioner was appointed as Cook in Ashram School

run by respondent no.1. He completed his probation

period on 30/06/2003. He remained absent being ill

and resumed his duty on 27/10/2003. Petitioner was

restrained and was not allowed to sign on muster roll.

Petitioner then received relieving order dated

21/10/2003 stating therein that his resignation dated

17/10/2002 was accepted by Management.

Management appointed respondent no.4 as Cook on

01/11/2003.

II. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati. It was

the case of petitioner that on 17/10/2002, he was

compelled to sign 8 blank papers and one resignation

letter was obtained from him by Management.

Petitioner made a grievance that he was being

harassed by Management and the Office Bearers , as

their illegal demand of Rs.50,000/- was not fulfilled by

him. According to petitioner, he had never tendered

resignation and his so called resignation was not

recognized in the eyes of law. Submission is that the

Appellate Authority has overlooked the provisions of

Ashram School Code pertaining to resignation and

passed an erroneous order which deserves to be set

aside.

03] Heard Smt. S.W. Deshpande, learned Counsel for

petitioner, Shri Apurv De, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1

& 2 and Shri A.M. Balpande, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for respondent no.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner

submits that in appeal memo, petitioner had raised all the

grounds including that the resignation was not accepted as

required under Ashram School Code. She refers to Rule 15,

which reads thus :

jkthukek %&

¼d½ rhu dW y s a M j efgU;ka p h uks V hl fnY;kua r j Lfkk;h deZ p kjh ukS d jh lks M w 'kdrks vkf.k ,d dW y s a M j efgU;ka p h uks V hl fnY;kua r j vLFkk;h deZ p kjh ukS d jh lks M w 'kdrks - rFkkfi] O;oLFkkiu rhu efgU;kP;k os r ukP;k iz n kukua r j ¼HkRrs oxGrk½ fda o k deZ p k&;kus fnys Y ;k uks V hlhP;k ,s o th iz d j.kijRos ,d efgU;kP;k os r ukP;k iz n kukua r j yodjp uks d jh lks M .;kl deZ p k&;kl ekU;rk ns . ;kr ;s b Z y - uks V h'khP;k ,s o th fnyh tk.kkjh gh jDde uks V h'khPkk dkyko/kh ftrD;k fnolka u h deh iMr vls y frRkD;k fnolka P ;k dkyko/khP;k os r ukbrdh fucZ a f /kr vls y -

¼[k½ dye 12 d e/;s fofufnZ " V dj.;kr vkY;kiz e k.ks jhrlj fnys Y ;k uks V h'khf'kok; fda o k jhrlj uks V h'khP;k ,s o th os r u fnY;kf'kok; ,[kkn;k deZ p k&;kl vxks n jp uks d jh lks M .;kl dks . kR;kgh O;oLFkkiukus ,[kkn;k deZ p k&;kl ekU;rk fnY;kl uks V h'kh,s o th |ko;kph os r ukph R;k iz e k.kkrhy jDde la c a f /kr 'kkGs y k ns ; vuq n kukrw u dki.;kr ;s b Z y -

¼N½ eks B ;k lq V hP;k dkyko/khe/;s fda o k lq V hP;k dks . kR;kgh HkkxkP;k dkyko/khe/;s jkthukE;kph uks V hl o"kkZ p s ifgys l= lq : >kY;kua r j ,dk efgU;kP;k vkr jkthukek ns r k ;s . kkj ukgh-

It is submitted that resignation dated 17/10/2002

accepted on 17/10/2003 after one year does not fulfill the

requirements as per Ashram School Code and the first order

passed by Additional Commissioner setting aside resignation

should not be interfered with.

04] Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2

relying upon muster roll, show cause notices issued to the

petitioner, resignation letter dated 17/10/2002, its

acknowledgment dated 17/10/2003 and copy of resolution

passed by Management on 20/10/2003 relieving the petitioner

from 10/09/2003 submitted that petitioner remained absent

without prior intimation causing inconvenience to Management

and the students. The submission is that small children were

depending on the food to be prepared by petitioner, and his

indiscriminate absence had caused serious inconvenience. It is

submitted that by notice dated 12/09/2003, 17/09/2003,

07/10/2003 and 16/10/2003, petitioner was called upon to

submit his explanation, but he did not respond. According to

respondents, letter of resignation was submitted by petitioner

due to his personal difficulties and the same was written out of

free will. The contention is that petitioner is trying to play

mischief and to make good his own wrong by making false

allegations that resignation letter was obtained by coercion.

Referring to the acknowledgment, learned Counsel submits that

resignation letter was received by Management on 18/10/2003

and thereafter prompt action was initiated. In the resolution

passed on 20/10/2003, reasons have been assigned and letter of

resignation came to be accepted by relieving the petitioner from

duty with effect from 10/09/2003. In this background, learned

Counsel submitted that impugned order is in accordance with

the law and petitioner cannot be allowed to make good his own

wrong.

05] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the

parties, this Court has gone through the impugned order and the

relevant provisions of the Ashram School Code. The moot

question in the present controversy is whether resignation letter

dated 17/10/2002 was obtained by coercion as alleged by

petitioner or was tendered by petitioner out of his free will.

Another point to be considered is whether resignation submitted

by petitioner was really accepted after a period of one year. It is

not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as Cook on a clear

and vacant post with effect from 30/06/2001. It is also an

admitted fact that he completed probation period in the year

2003. Petitioner does not dispute that he was on leave from

10/09/2003 to 17/09/2003, which came to be extended from

time to time till 26/10/2003. Petitioner assigned two reasons for

his absence : (i) he was ill and (ii) he was being harassed by

Management and Office Bearers as he did not accept their

demand to pay Rs.50,000/- as donation.

06] It can be seen from the notices dated 12/09/2003,

17/09/2003, 07/10/2003 and 16/10/2003 that petitioner was

called upon to submit his explanation. He did not respond. He

did not submit explanation regarding his absence from

10/09/2003 to 26/10/2003.

07] It is not in serious dispute that at the relevant time,

strength of students was 200. They were small children and

three Cooks were to look after their food arrangements. Due to

absence of petitioner and inaction to respond the notices issued

by Management, resignation came to be accepted. According to

petitioner, the same was obtained by coercion. Nothing is on

record to substantiate the contention raised by petitioner in this

regard. Copy of acknowledgment clearly indicates that letter

was received by Management on 18/10/2003. Relieving order

was issued to him with effect from 10/09/2003. Before issuing

relieving order, opportunities were given to petitioner to explain

his absence. As he did not submit his explanation, Management

was constrained to accept the resignation by passing a

resolution in a meeting, to avoid hardship being caused to the

students and Management.

08] In the above premise, this Court does not find any

illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati. As such no

interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following

order :

ORDER

I. Writ Petition No.4796/2008 stands dismissed.

II. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

*sdw                                              (Kum. Indira Jain, J.)