BRIJ KISHORE PACHAURI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition-petitioner has challenged the order of D.I.O.S. dated 12.5.1995, holding that petitioner voluntarily resigned from the post of teacher in Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Mursan, Aligarh on 19.9.1994. The said order of D.I.O.S. was passed in pursuance of order passed in earlier similar writ petition filed by the petitioner (Writ Petition No. 35963 of 1994, decided on 11.11.1994).

(2.) From the perusal of averments in the writ petition, it is clear that instead of concentrating on teaching work, petitioner devoted much of his time and energy in exposing the alleged misappropriation of funds by the Principal probably in order to shield his own misdeeds. Petitioner filed complaints to different authorities including District Magistrate, F.I.R. and application before the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. In this background, the case set up by the petitioner that the Principal invited him over a cup of tea at his residence on 18.9.1994 and drugged him by adding some intoxicant in the tea and obtained his resignation in that state is not at all believable. Petitioner even though not unknown to the procedure of filing complaints, F.l.R. and applications under Section 156 (3) did not lodge any F.l.R. with the police with regard to the said incident. Even though in para 16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that wife of petitioner sent a complaint to the police but copy of the alleged complaint annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition does not show as to what manner was adopted to send the same to the police authorities. In para 16 of the writ petition also, there is no such mention. The D.I.O.S. in his impugned order has held that no such complaint was made. The finding recorded in the order passed by the D.I.O.S. dated 12.5.1995, that resignation was voluntarily given is perfectly in accordance with the material brought on record before him by the parties, i.e., petitioner, management and the Principal. Very cogent reasons have been given by the D.I.O.S. to record the said findings. The material on record does not justify to take contrary view ; in any case the said findings being findings of fact cannot be reversed or interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The D.I.O.S. has also held that management was entitled to waive 3 months notice/salary, by virtue of Regulation 29 (4) of Chapter III of the regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act and it in fact waived its right to have the said notice/salary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the aforesaid Regulation 29 (4), resignation letter of the petitioner, even if voluntarily given, was not legal as petitioner neither paid 3 months salary nor gave notice of 3 months in advance. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following authorities : (1) 1982 UPLBEC 4 76 (DB) (2) 1983 UPLBEC 721 (SB) ; (3) 1985 UPLBEC 560 (SB) ; (4) 2000 (4) AWC 2767 (SB) ;