RAM KRISHNA PAUL Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3,6.95 of the Headmaster/Secretary of the Depa Government Aided High School, Dainadubi, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya, warning the petitioner for some immoral activities and the orders dated 27.6.95 and 3.8.95 accepting the resignation of the petitioner and releasing him from the school with effect from 26.6.95.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher in Depa Government Aided High School. On the basis of a complaint made by some girl students of the school on 15.5.95., the Managing Committee of the said school adopted a resolution on 15.5.95. suspending the petitioner: from service. But, thereafter, on 25.5.95, the Managing Committee of the school on review withdrew the said suspension and reinstated the petitioner in service. This was communicated to the petitioner by the Headmaster/Secretary of the Depa Govt, Aided High School in his letter dated 26,5.95. On 3.6.95, however, the Headmaster/Secretary of the school intimated the petitioner that as he had been found to have indulged in immoral activities causing bad reputation to the school, fellow-teachers and the school authorities, the Managing Committee of the School in its meeting held on 2nd June, 1995 has warned that in.future he should cany with good moral character and should not indulge himself in immoral activities and that he should not write/ submit any letter about the school administration directly to the Department/ Association and such letters, if required, should be sent through the proper channel. The petitioner then submitted a resignation letter dated 23.6.95 to the Headmaster/ Secretary of the said school stating therein that he resigned from his post of the said school. But immediately thereafter on 26.6.97, the petitioner sent a letter to the Inspector of Schools, East Garo Hills District from Bongaigaon requesting him not to accord approval to his resignation letter dated 23.6.95. and not to take any other action to terminate his service from the said school. Despite the said letter dated 26.6.95 of the petitioner, the Headmaster/Secretary of the said school passed an order on 27.6.95 to the effect that the resignation of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of Depa Government Aided High School was accepted by the Managing Committee of School on 26.6.95 and that the petitioner was released from the school with effect from 26th June, 1995. In the circumstances, the petitioner sent another letter dated 12.7.95 to the Inspector of Schools, East Garo Hills District again requesting him not to approve his resignation as the same had been taken by the Headmaster/Secretary of the school under duress and threat of his life. Notwithstanding the said letter, the Inspector of Schools, East Garo Hills District, approved the termination of the petitioner from service by his Memo, dated 2.8.95 and a fresh order was passed by the Headmaster/Secretary of the School on 3rd August, 1995 releasing the petitioner from the said school with effect from 26.6.95.

(3.) Mr. B.M. Mahanta and Mr. G.P. Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the resignation letter was taken from the petitioner under duress and threats and that the petitioner had not given the said resignation letter voluntarily and hence the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in his service. Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents-4 and 5, on the other hand, pointed out that the resignation letter dated 23.6.95 that has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-8 is not the one which the petitioner has actually submitted to the Headmaster/Secretary of the Depa Government Aided High School. Mr. Jain stated that the true copy of the resignation letter of the petitioner dated 23.6.95 has been annexed to the affidavit-in-oppbsition filed on behalf of respondents-4 and 5 in which the petitioner has clearly stated that he has tendered his resignation voluntarily from the past of Assistant teacher. Mr Jain further disputed the contention of the petitioner that the resignation letter was taken from him under threat and duress.