Bombay High Court
Nilesh S/O Dayaramji Khajone, Amravati vs Sarwdnya Bahuuddeshiya Sansta Thr. ... on 10 July, 2017
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 :-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 :::
wp.4796.08.jud 2
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 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 ::: wp.4796.08.jud 3 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 :
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 ::: wp.4796.08.jud 4
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-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 ::: wp.4796.08.jud 5 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 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 ::: wp.4796.08.jud 6 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 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 ::: wp.4796.08.jud 7 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 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 ::: wp.4796.08.jud 8 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.)
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:00:08 :::