SURENDRA NATH RAI Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 12.9.1991, as has been alleged in the petition, on the pressure caused by some hooligans, petitioner was forced to submit a letter of resignation. In that regard, petitioner did not lodge a First Information Report. He also did not inform the college authorities as regards obtaining of the said letter of resignation by hooligans. He did not communicate with any of the State authorities in connection therewith. On 30.9.1991, purporting to accept the resignation of the petitioner, the college terminated the services of the petitioner. On 4.10.1991, petitioner, for the first time, reacted in relation to the alleged letter of resignation by completely denying to have submitted any such letter of resignation.

(2.) ANNEXURE 6 to the writ petition is a letter, which was treated as the resignation letter of the petitioner. A look at this letter would make it absolutely clear that the same could not have been obtained by any person, per force, from the petitioner. The story, as made out in the writ petition, that the petitioner was forced by hooligans to submit a resignation letter, is absolutely incorrect. Annexure 6 to the writ petition suggests that brother of one of the students of the college, though did not give in writing that the student will behave in proper manner, but orally made the same known to the petitioner. But despite that the behaviour of the student remained unaltered. In the letter, it was stated that he was asked by another student that the petitioner should resign. That student, by force, obtained a letter from the petitioner to show that the petitioner is willing to be transferred from that college. He was also asking him to submit resignation. Somehow he could avoid giving the resignation. He and his family, in the circumstances, are in quandary as to what should be done by them. By the letter, he asked for assistance. He stated that he is so scared that he is unable to initiate appropriate proceedings. He was thus seeking appropriate decision from the addressee of the letter. He stated that in the circumstances, it is not possible to continue to work with dignity in the post. Accordingly, it is prayed that he may be relieved from the college.

(3.) AS aforesaid, this resignation letter was accepted as far back as on 30.9.1991. In 1992, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad. That writ petition was transferred to this Court, whereupon the same was registered as Writ Petition Service Single No. 6832 of 2001. The petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 24.8.2009 with liberty to file a fresh one. The present writ petition was filed on 9.9.2009. On 9.9.2009, the cause of action of the petitioner, in respect of an action which took place on 30.9.1991, was not surviving.