Modern School And Shashi Pal ... vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 376 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1.By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the two writ petitions, namely, CWP No.5304/1997 and CWP No.1869/1998 as the facts and the issues arising in the said petitions are similar and interconnected.

2.Shri Shashi Pal Sharma, the respondent No.4 in CWP No.5304/1997 and the petitioner in CWP No.1869/1998 (hereinafter called `the respondent No.4') was appointed as Sanskrit Teacher in the Modern School (hereinafter called `the school') on 2.6.1978 and since then he was working in the school, which is the petitioner in CWP No.5304/1997 and respondent No.4 in CWP No.1869/1998 filed by the respondent No.4.

3.There was some family discord in between the respondent No.4 and his wife for which a complaint was filed by the wife of the teacher before the school authority. The school also made certain inquiries with regard to certain documents filed by the respondent No.4 with the authority to claim income tax benefits. On the inquiries made by the school it was found that the documents placed by him to claim the income tax benefits under the Income Tax Act were not genuine. Around the same time, the respondent No.4 submitted his resignation stating that due to some urgent and serious domestic problems it was difficult for him to continue to serve in the school. By sending the said letter on 17.3.1997 he requested for acceptance of the said letter of resignation. The Principal of the school accepted the said resignation on 18.3.1997, which was also shown to have been approved by the Managing Committee of the school on 18.3.1997 by circulation. The letter of resignation submitted by the teacher was forwarded to the Director of Education by the school on 19.3.1997 stating that the said resignation had been accepted subject to the approval of the Director of Education and sought for an early approval of the same. In the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 18.3.1997, which was shown to have been accepted by circulation, it was stated that after obtaining the sanction of the Director of Education, the respondent No.4, Mr. S.P. Sharma, be relieved from his duties after expiry of the three months notice period stipulated by Delhi School Education Act and the Rules. A copy of the said resolution is placed on record, which indicates that some of the members of the Managing Committee did not sign the said resolution. After accepting the said resignation the Principal of the school informed the respondent No.4 by letter dated 13.5.1997 that his resignation letter had been accepted and that he would stand relieved with effect from 17.6.1997, i.e., after expiry of three months' notice period.

4.The respondent No.4, however, relies upon a letter shown to have been written by him on 18.3.1997 to the Chairperson of the Managing Committee. The said letter is placed on record by the respondent No.4 in his writ petition as annexure-C. It is stated in the said letter that he wrote the said letter of resignation under serious domestic problems but by the grace of God those problems had been solved and so he was withdrawing the said letter of resignation. The said letter is dated 18.3.1997 i.e. a day after submission of the said resignation. He wrote another letter on 15.5.1997 to the Principal of the school stating that he was shocked to receive the letter of the Principal dated 13.5.1997 accepting his resignation. He stated in the said letter written by him on 15.5.1997 that he had withdrawn his resignation by letter dated 18.3.1997 which was received in the school under diary No.1715 of the dispatch register which was followed by a telegram dated 14.5.1997. In the said letter he had further stated that, therefore, action of the Principal in accepting the resignation was illegal and invalid and that the school should withdraw the letter dated 13.5.1997. The Director of Education by letter dated 17.6.1997 wrote to the Manager of the school that the office of the Directorate of Education had not accorded approval for the acceptance of the resignation of Shri S.P. Sharma as he had withdrawn his resignation the very next day i.e. 18.3.1997 and as the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Managing Committee and that the resolution of the Managing Committee was passed through circulation which was against the Departmental Instructions dated 17.10.1996. The Directorate of Education also advised the school authority to hold a meeting of the Managing Committee in future in accordance with the directions of the Department.

5.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order issued by the Directorate of Education, the writ petition was filed by the school authority praying for setting aside and quashing the directions of the Directorate of Education in that regard compelling the school to take back the teacher in service and also for a declaration that the resignation of the teacher was legally and validly accepted and that the teacher was no longer in the employment of the school. The teacher, who is being described in this order as the respondent No.4, however, filed his writ petition seeking for issuance of a direction to the school to take him back in school with immediate effect in compliance of the of the orders of Directorate of Education.

6.Counsel appearing for the school during the course of his submissions has taken me through the records highlighting the conduct of the teacher and his habit of manipulating and fabricating the records. He also submitted that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the school immediately after its submission and that the same was accepted before the effective date and, therefore, the requirement of the law was completed on the very next day i.e. on 18.3.1997. He also submitted that the contention of the respondent No.4 that he had withdrawn the resignation before the effective date is misplaced and is required to be rejected, for his resignation letter was accepted before the effective date and the only thing that remained was to relieve him from service. In support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel relies upon various documents on record to which my attention was drawn and I propose to deal with them during the course of my discussion in this order.

7.Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that he had withdrawn his resignation before the effective date and, therefore, the said resignation was inoperative and had lapsed as it was withdrawn before the effective date and, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. He also submitted that his resignation could be deemed to have been accepted only when the approval by the Director is granted. The counsel contended that in the present case the Director of Education having refused to grant any approval to the acceptance of the resignation by the school, the acceptance of the resignation had no validity in the eye of law.

8.The teacher was appointed by the school as the Sanskrit Teacher by an order dated 2.6.1978 wherein it was also stated that he would be governed by the Rules and Regulations specified in the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The wife of the respondent No.4 also submitted a complaint to the school regarding the conduct and behavior of her husband. It was also pointed out in the said complaint that he was in the habit of fabricating documents and he got some 200 fake coupons in respect of the fare which was held in the school on 15.12.1996, which he distributed amongst his children telling them to enjoy a lot. The wife had also stated in the complaint that she was ill-treated and abused. The school also thought it fit to enquire into and investigate the genuineness of the documents submitted by the respondent No.4 in the school for claiming the privilege and benefits under the Income tax Act. The teacher had furnished the copies of the National Savings Certificates of the Post Office on the basis of which he had availed tax deductions and exemptions in addition to the standard deduction available to a salaried person. The school wrote a letter to him calling upon him to furnish photocopies of the National Savings Certificates submitted by him for the year 1995-96, 1993-94, 1994-95 for Rs.35,000, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively. The teacher sent a reply under the letter dated 3.4.1997 confirming that he had already submitted photocopies of the National Savings Certificates. It appears that a further correspondences were exchanged between the teacher and the school regarding production of photocopies and originals of the National Savings Certificates. Be that as it may, the school made enquiries during the course of which it was revealed that photocopies submitted by the teacher to the school were forged and fabricated, which is shown to be so by the endorsement made by the concerned post offices. In view of the aforesaid position a criminal case has since been instituted against the teacher.

9.The reason given for submitting the resignation by the respondent No.4 on 17.3.1997 was that he had some urgent and serious domestic problems and, therefore, it would be difficult for him to continue to serve in the school and he requested for acceptance of the letter of resignation immediately and to release all his benefits at the earliest. The Principal of the School made an endorsement in the said resignation letter itself accepting the said resignation on 18.3.1997. However, it is established from the records that the aforesaid resignation of the teacher was accepted by the Managing Committee by adopting a resolution by circulation dated 18.3.1997. It is, however, established from the minutes regarding acceptance of the resignation by circulation that all the members of the Managing Committee did not sign the said resolution sought to be adopted by circulation. It is also established that one of the members signed the same only on 26.3.1997.

10.The respondent No.4, however, has stated and has pleaded specifically not only in the writ petition filed by him but also before the Directorate of Education that he had withdrawn the resignation by letter dated 18.3.1997, which was received by the school under diary No.1715 in the dispatch register. Photocopy of the letter withdrawing the letter of resignation was also enclosed with the said letter. The withdrawal letter is dated 18.3.1997 and is addressed to the Chairperson, Managing Committee, Modern School wherein it is stated by him that he wrote the letter of resignation under serious domestic problems and that by the grace of God those problems were solved and, therefore, he was withdrawing the letter of resignation. In view of the contents used in the withdrawal letter, which was shown to have been sent on the very next day of the date of submission of the resignation letter it has become necessary to ascertain and scrutinise the veracity of the statement of the teacher as to whether or not the resignation letter was withdrawn by letter dated 18.3.1997. The resignation letter was accepted by the Principal on 18.3.1997. In order to prove and establish that he had withdrawn the resignation letter before the same was accepted by the Principal, the letter dated 18.3.1997 is placed on record which is shown to have been received by the school by making a diary number. The specific stand of the teacher is that he submitted his letter withdrawing the resignation letter on 18.3.1997 in the school which was received by the school authority by giving a diary number which is 1715 of 18.3.1997. I had called for the original dispatch register from the school authority in order to examine the veracity of the said statement pursuant to which the same was placed before me. The said diary No.1715 of the dispatch register relates to some other correspondence and not that of the particular letter stated to have been submitted by the respondent No.4 under the said number. It is interesting to note that the said entry is of one Sh. C.S. Sharma which is also dated 18.3.1997 and the petitioner is seeking to take advantage of the said entry because of similarity in the surname. Besides, the previous day the teacher submitted his resignation giving urgent and serious domestic problems as the reason for submitting the resignation and on the very next day he allegedly submitted another application withdrawing the letter of resignation stating that his domestic problems which forced him to take a drastic step like submitting a resignation had been solved overnight. It appears that the said letter is made out by the respondent No.4 in order to show that he had withdrawn the resignation letter even before it was accepted by the Principal. By that he also could persuade the Director of Education not to accord approval to the acceptance of the resignation which is established from the letter of the Director of Education dated 17.6.1997.

11.Taking notice of the surrounding circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the teacher not only fabricated the documents filed for claiming benefits under the Income Tax Act but also fabricated and manipulated the record to strengthen his case that he had withdrawn the resignation even before the same was accepted by the Principal of the school.

12.The resignation submitted by the teacher was accepted by the Principal on the very next day but the same was shown to have been accepted by the Managing Committee only through circulation in which all the members of the Managing Committee had not put their signature whereas one of the members of the Managing Committee had signed the same only on 26.3.1997. Even after acceptance of the resignation the school authority stated that he shall continue to work in the school for the three months' notice period and would stand relieved only with effect from June 1997. All the aforesaid facts would make out a very strong arguable case in favor of the respondent No.4 that he had withdrawn his resignation letter before the effective date but here is a case where the conduct of the teacher is dishonest. He had fabricated and manipulated the financial documents in order to claim benefits under the Income Tax Act for which a criminal case is pending again him. It is also established from the circumstances of the case which are delineated hereinabove that he had also fabricated and manipulated the records including documents trying to make out a case that he had withdrawn the resignation letter on 18.3.1997. The same cannot be believed in view of the surrounding circumstances which are already set out, for it cannot be believed that his pressing domestic problems for which he had to take recourse to such a drastic step like submission of a resignation letter could be solved overnight leading to his withdrawal of the resignation letter the very next day.

 13.I am of the considered opinion that the teacher is not entitled to any relief in a case like this where his hands are not clean.  He has come to the Court seeking for a writ with tainted hands.   The Court would not come in aid of a person whose hands are soiled and conduct is not above board.  The concerned school is a premier institute of Delhi and the teacher working in such a school has to discharge onerous and responsible task  of  forming  the  career  of  future  and responsible citizens.    But a person who is found to be tainted and soiled cannot be ordered to be taken back in the school, which would not even jeopardise the functioning of the school but may also affect the reputation of the school.    
 

 14.Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition filed by the teacher, respondent No.4, holding that no direction could be issued in the present case to the school as sought for by him keeping in view the specific facts and circumstances of the case.  I uphold the severance of the relationship between the teacher, respondent No.4, and the school but direct the school authority to pay all the benefits as due and payable to him upon acceptance of the resignation.  If any amount is found due and payable the same shall be paid within four weeks from today.  In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions both the writ petitions stand disposed of.   
 

 15.It is, however, made clear that the observations and opinions expressed herein are meant for these cases.   The same shall have no bearing in the criminal case pending against the teacher, the respondent No.4, and shall not be used or utilised in any other case against him in any manner.