Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 -
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.
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.