POPATLAL NARANBHAI PATEL Vs. NAVCHETAN HIGH SCHOO TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thee petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the secondary school owned and managed by the first respondent-Dust on August 4 1976 On August 25 1980 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet in regard to certain alleged misconduct. The petitioner tendered his reply to the charge sheet. The management thereupon appointed an Inquiry Committee and the said Committee commenced inquiry proceedings some time in the month of November 1980 It is the case of the petitioner that while the inquiry was still in progress the Managing Trustee and Principal of the school as well as the members of the Inquiry Committee made attempts to persuade the petitioner to tender resignation. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was threatened with criminal prosecution and warned that his service record might be spoiled unless he voluntarily left the institution by tendering resignation. The petitioner has produced at Annexure A (collectively) three letters addressed to him by the Principal of the school calling upon him to tender resignation. The first letter is dated January 12 1981 It states that at the meeting of the Committee (presumably the Inquiry Committee) held on January 5 1981 he was asked to bring the resignation in triplicate which he had failed to do and that therefore he should personally tender resignation in triplicate on January 13 1981 at 12-30 noon. The second letter is dated January 24 1981 This letter also refers to the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee held on January 5 1981 in the same terms and records that the petitioner had neither tendered resignation nor sent a reply to the letter dated January 12 1981 The letter proceeded to state that if the petitioner failed to appear in person with his resignation at 11-30 A.M. on January 27 1981 further proceedings will have to be taken against the petitioner. The third letter is dated January 27 1981 It refers to the earlier communications dated yJanuary 12 1981 and Januar 24 1981 and proceeds to state that the petitioner had failed to reply to those letters or to appear in person with his resignation in triplicate. The petitioner was informed that he was being given the last chance to appear in person with his resignation in triplicate on January 29 1981 at 11 A.M. and he was warned that if he failed to tender resignation according the management will be compelled to take further proceedings against the petitioner. A copy of this letter was forwarded to all the three members of the Inquiry Committee.

(2.) The petitioners case is that on February 25 1981 he was summoned to the school. The Managing Trustee the Principal members of the Inquiry Committee and a few other persons were present when he went there. The petitioner was pressurised by those persons to tender his resignation and he was threatened with dire consequences such as dismissal from service and criminal prosecution if he Ailed to tender resignation. At the end of about two hours exercise in that direction those persons succeeded in obtaining from the petitioner a letter of resignation as dictated by the Principal. The petitioner was then taken to the office of the District Education Officer Ahmedabad by some of the representatives of the management including the Principal. At the said office the District Education Officer was not present on that day. One Mr. Rathod was the In-charge Officer. The petitioner was taken to the chamber of the said officer and the resignation tendered by him earlier was produced before the said officer by the Principal. The officer was not conversant with the procedure and he therefore summoned one Mr. Soni who was employed in the same office. Mr. Soni advised that ordinarily in cases where departmental proceedings were pending approval under Section 36(4) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 was not granted. Mr. Soni is also alleged to have advised that the petitioner should be granted some time to reflect over the resignation and that independent inquiry should also be held to ascertain the voluntary nature of the resignation. Mr. Rathod thereupon expressed his unwillingness to immediately endorse the resignation. The Principal and one of the persons accompanying him thereupon requested Mr. Rathod to give them private audience. The request was granted. After joint deliberations took place for about forty minutes between Mr. Rathod and those persons in the chamber of the former the petitioner was called in and he was asked to endorse below the letter of resignation that he was tendering the same voluntarily. The resignation was thereafter endorsed by Mr. Rathod and it was accepted on the next day that is February 26 1981 The resignation was made effective from June 25 1981 and it was accepted in those terms.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that by his letter dated June 8 1981 he withdrew the resignation setting out the circumstances under which it was tendered by him. By a letter dated June 11 1981 the School Management informed the petitioner that his resignation had already been accepted and that he was not entitled to withdraw the same.