Maruti Pandurang Jambhale vs Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Sanstha ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 693 Bom

                                                                          L.P.A. No. 82/2005
                                                  1


                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                  APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       LETTERS PETENT APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2005
                                         IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 1996
                                        WITH
                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13415 OF 2016

         Maruti Pandurang Jambhale,
         Age     Years, Occu.
         R/o. Final Plot No. 150,
         Jambhale Nager, Dhule.                          ....Appellant.

                  Versus

1.       Shri. Shivaji Vidya Prasarak
         Sanstha, Dhule.
         Through it's Chairman,
         having registered office at
         Gat No. 6, CTS No. 1596/97,
         Dhule.

2.       The Principal of the Science
         College of Shri. Shivaji Didya
         Prasarak Sansta, Dhule.

3.       The Presiding Officer,
         University Tribunal at Pune,
         Pune.                                                 ....Respondents.

Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 1.


                                    CORAM     :       T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                                      SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                    DATED :           JANUARY 19, 2018.

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

1)                The appeal is filed to challenge the decision given by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1874/1996. The

said petition was filed by present appellant to challenge the judgment

L.P.A. No. 82/2005

and order of College Tribunal (Pune University), Pune delivered in

Appeal No. P.U. 8/86. The appeal was filed by the present appellant for

relief of giving direction to the respondent employer, college to see

that continuation in service is given to him by treating that his

resignation was withdrawn by him. He had also prayed for giving

direction to make payments of salary and other allowances for the

period from 13.4.1984 to 9.9.1984, 5.12.1984 to 18.12.1984 and also

from the period starting from 1.4.1986. The proceeding before the

Tribunal was filed on 29.4.1986 and the submissions made show that

the appellant joined other service in the year 1995 and he retired on

that post. Both the sides are heard.

2) The appellant was working as Post Graduate Teacher with

respondent college and he had joined the service in the year 1970. He

tendered the resignation on which he had shown the date of tender as

25.12.1986 and it was actually handed over to respondent employer

on 7.12.1984. On the ground of ill health, he had tendered the

resignation. In the meeting of the committee of the respondents dated

23.3.1986, this resignation came to be accepted.

3) It is the case of the appellant that he had withdrawn the

resignation prior to the date of acceptance by respondents and so, he

is entitled to aforesaid reliefs. In Civil Application, he has produced

L.P.A. No. 82/2005

some record which include zerox copies of one so called telegram sent

by the appellant on 18.1.1986. By showing this record, he wants to

show that well before the acceptance of resignation, it was withdrawn

by him. This Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeal

filed before the Tribunal. In para No. 17 of the memo, he had

mentioned about sending of telegram and also sending of letter

through post on 21.1.1986. This contention was denied by

respondents in their written statement and it can be said that this

contention was considered by the Tribunal, but it was not accepted. In

Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the

resignation was voluntarily given and it was rightly accepted. In the

appeal, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge has not

considered the relevant record with regard to the withdrawal of the

resignation and so, the decision of the learned Single Judge needs to

be set aside.

4) This Court has carefully gone through the entire record

which contains rival contentions. The service record of the appellant

was not that good. The contentions made show that the employer had

accommodated him on every occasion. He was granted study leave for

the period from 23.9.1977 to 22.9.1980, but he could not complete

his research work during that period. In the year 1983 to 1985 he was

again granted leave. The contentions made show that he was not

L.P.A. No. 82/2005

discharging his duty, but he was showing his presence. He was trying

to get the salary in respect of vacation period though he was not

attending the duty. On all occasions, when it was noticed that he was

not on duty, he had applied for leave without pay and that was

granted.

5) The contentions and the record show that after the

meeting dated 23.3.1986 he made another attempt to create

complication and he left the application for leave for 23.3.1986 and

24.3.1986. One professor of his own department had accepted the

letter from the appellant and he had made endorsement to show the

date of receipt as 24.3.1986. Thus, this letter was given subsequent to

the acceptance of the resignation by the employer. The record and the

submissions show that he was suffering from serious illness and due to

that he had serious problem of breathing. For about two and half years

prior to tendering of resignation, he was sick and different kinds of

leave were sanctioned to him. He has tried to contend that he was

forced by the Principal to give signature on blank paper for sanction of

leave, but this contention is not acceptable as in the past on all the

occasions leave was sanctioned to him. His conduct that subsequently

he accepted other employment also speaks volume about this conduct.

Thus, on facts the learned Single Judge has held that it was voluntary

resignation and it was rightly accepted. It cannot be said that this

L.P.A. No. 82/2005

Court, the learned Single Judge has not gone through the reasoning

given by the Tribunal in appeal. In the appeal memo, the aforesaid

contentions were made by the present appellant before the Tribunal.

In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not possible

to believe that the learned Single Judge has not considered the

circumstances which the appellant has raised for challenging the

decision of the Tribunal.

6) The learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on some

observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as LEX

(SC) 1999 1 72 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Sangamesh

Printing Press Vs. Chief Executive Officer Taluk Development

Board]. There cannot be dispute over the proposition made by the

Apex Court. The facts of the present matter are altogether different. It

is clear that at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, he suppressed

that he had joined other service. The other conduct of the present

appellant is already mentioned. This Court holds that it is not possible

to interfere in the decision given by the learned Single Judge of this

Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Civil Application stands

disposed of.

         [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]              [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

ssc/