B L SHRIVASTAVA Vs. M M L SHRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 7-10-1965 (Annexure P-16) passed by Respondent No. 3 accepting the resignation of the petitioner dated 22-3-1965.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1963. He was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Budwa, Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol, where respondent No. 1 was the Principal of the school. It is said that on 6-9-1963 some quarrel took place between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on the question of the use of two benches by the petitioner with the result that the respondent No. 1 along with one K. K. Sisodiya went to the petitioners residence and not only abused him but even gave him severe beating causing fracture in the right forearm. The petitioner sent a complaint about the said occurrence to respondent No. 2, the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa, but he did not take any notice of it. The petitioner also approached the respondent No. 3, the Director of Public Instruction, and even sent a complaint about his grievances vide letter dated 30-4-1964 (Annexure P-5 ). The respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 2 to remove the grievances of the petitioner, but respondent No. 2 without making any enquiry sent a communication to the petitioner that no prima facie case was established against respondent. No. 1. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from Budwa to Madhogarh and subsequently from Madhogarh to Lamsarai in the interior of Sidhi District. He was relieved with immediate effect on 10-9-1964 to join at Lamsarai. As the petitioner on account of his ill-health could not join at Lamsarai, he made a request to treat the period after 10-9-1964 as on leave and suggested that he may be transferred to Satna where medical aid was available, failing which he may be retired from service. These requests of the petitioner were turned down. On account of such treatment from the Education Department the petitioner was highly disturbed mentally and under the impulse of disappointment submitted a conditional resignation on 22-3-1965 vide Annexure P14. It is further urged that subsequently on second thought the petitioner withdrew his resignation by sending letter dated 20-7-1965 vide Annexure P-15, but on 7-10-1965 the petitioner's resignation was accepted vide Annexure P-16. It is therefore urged that after receiving the letter of withdrawal of the resignation the respondent No. 3 was not competent to accept the resignation and hence the said order may be quashed.

(3.) THE respondents opposed the writ petition firstly on the ground of inordinate delay. Secondly, they denied to have received the letter of the petitioner regarding withdrawal of resignation. Thus, according to them, the acceptance of the resignation was proper.