SURESH CHANDRA JATAV Vs. CHAIRMAN DISTRICT BOARD ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Assistant Teacher in Primary Pathshala. Baliyapur Development Block. Jaswant Nagar. He was an employee of District Board. Etawah. He worked till 31.12.89 and went on medical leave from 1.1.90 to 15.1.90. When he came to resume his duties on 16.1.90, he was informed (hat his resignation letter dated 22.12,89 tendered to Chairman, District Board has been accepted by District Basic Education Officer. Etawah on 26.12.89. He made a representation to District Basic Education Officer that he never tendered resignation and had worked till 31.12.89 after which he was on medical leave from 1.1.90 to 15.1.90, therefore, he was illegally prevented from joining. He further stated that District Basic Education Officer was his appointing authority and the petitioner being a permanent Assistant Teacher could only resign after giving three months' notice. It was further stated that he did not submit any resignation letter and he may be allowed to join duties. The petitioner further alleged that he is a victim of political vendetta. The resignation letter according to him was cooked up by the Chairman, District Board. Etawah. The petitioner has by the Instant writ petition, challenged the acceptance of alleged resignation letter by District Basic Education Officer. Etawah on 26.12.89, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 the allegations are denied and it is alleged that the petitioner resigned on his own accord voluntarily. The allegation of political reasons was denied. It is alleged that the resignation letter is In the handwriting of the petitioner.

(2.) 1 have heard Shri B. Ram. learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. J. Sahai learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was not present when the matter was taken up in the revised list. Shri K. S. Shukla who also appeared for respondent No. 2 did not appear.

(3.) On the allegations and counter allegations, the question is whether petitioner resigned. The petitioner is alleged to have tendered his resignation letter to the Chairman of the district board who forwarded it to the Basic Shiksha Adhlkari. In the writ petition it is asserted that he never resigned and the resignation letter was forged. The respondent No. I put in appearance on 28.3.90 but did not file any counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari who had received the alleged resignation letter forwarded by the Chairman could not effectively deny these allegations. Since the allegations are not denied by respondent No. 1 by filing a counter-affidavit, the claim of the petitioner thai he did not resign and the resignation was forged lias to be accepted as correct in view of the law laid down by (he Apex Court and this Court. (See Bir Singh Chauhan u. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (2) SCC (L & S) 1447, M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Kanpur and others, 1999 (62) FLR 709.