High Court
Legal Reasoning
1wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.6506 OF 20221.SecretaryParimal Shikshan Prasarak mandalNarayan Nagar, Latur,Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.Head MasterParimal Secondary & Higher Secondary School,Narayan Nagar, Latur,Tq. & Dist. Latur.…..PETITIONER(Ori. Resp. Nos.1 & 2)VERSUS1.Prahlad s/o Uttamrao MugaleAge: 39 years, Occu: Assistant Teacher,R/o: Plot No. 84, Sutimil Compound,Sutimil Road, Latur,Tq. & Dist. Latur…..RESPONDENT(Orig. Appellant)2.The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Latur3.Maharudra nagannath Nargunde,Age: 32 years, Occu: Assistant Teacher,R/o Parimal Secondary & Higher Secondary School,Narayan Nagar, Latur,Tq. & Dist. Latur.…..RESPONDENTS(Orig. Resp. Nos. 3 & 4)WITH
Legal Reasoning
2wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022WRIT PETITION NO.12302 OF 2022Pralhad S/o Uttamrao MugaleAge: 43 years, Occupation: Service (T),R/o Plot No. 84, Sutmil Compound,Sutmil Road, Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur.…..PETITIONERVERSUS1.Through It’s Secretary,Parimal Shikshan PrasarakMandal, Narayannagar, Latur,Tq. And Dist. Latur2.The Head Master,Parimal Secondary and HigherSecondary School, Narayannagar,Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur.3.The Education Officer (Secondary)Zill Parishad, Latur Tq. And Dist. Latur.4.Maharudra Jagannath NargundeAge: 36 years, Occupation: Asst. Teacher,R/o Parimal Secondary and HigherSecondary School, Narayannagar,Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur.5.The State of MaharashtraThrough Secretary of School Education and SportDepartment, Mantralaya,Mumbai. 32 .…..RESPONDENTS______________________________________________________Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner in W.P.No.6506/2022 and for respondent nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.12302/2022Dr. Mr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioner in W.P.No.12302/2022 and for respondent no.1 in W.P.6506/2022Mr. N. N. Jagadale, Advocate for respondent no.3 in W.P.No.6506/2022 and for respondent no.4 in W.P.No.12302/2022Mr. V. M. Chate, AGP for respondents-State______________________________________________________ 3wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.RESERVED ON:18TH JULY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON:28TH JULY, 2025JUDGMENT :-.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2.Heard finally with consent of parties.3.The present petitions arise out of judgment and orderdated 20.04.2022, passed by the learned Presiding Officer,School Tribunal, Latur in appeal no.10 of 2019. Writ PetitionNo.6506 of 2022 is filed by the management challengingdirection for reinstatement in service. Writ Petition No.12302of 2022 is filed by the employee challenging denial of backwages. 4.The respondent no.1 was appointed as AssistantTeacher with Parimal Secondary and Higher SecondarySchool, Latur, which is a school run by the petitionerno.1/trust.5.The respondent no.1 was appointed as AssistantTeacher with the said school vide appointment order dated24.05.2005. He was thereafter confirmed in service after 4wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022completing period of probation. The services of therespondent/employee were approved by the EducationOfficer.6.The respondent/employee filed appeal against thepetitioners and the respondent nos.2 and 3, being appealno.13 of 2015. It is the case of the respondent/employee thatafter he had completed the probation period successfully andthe school was admitted to grant-in-aid, the managementstarted harassing him. It is contended that the petitioners didnot allow him to sign the muster/attendance register sincecommencement of academic session, June, 2013; and that hehad issued various letters to the petitioner no.2 and to therespondent/Education Officer in this regard. According to therespondent/employee, he had issued a registered letter dated20.06.2013 to the respondent no.2 making grievance aboutnot providing muster roll for signing. The respondent/employee contends that while he was appointed in service, themanagement had obtained two undated documents writtenand signed from him; one being a notice of resignation andanother being a resignation letter. He contends that after the 5wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022school was admitted to grant-in-aid, the management used tothreaten to misuse the said documents and to expel him fromservice. The respondent/employee contends that these twoundated documents were fabricated by the petitioners byinserting date to make a show that the respondent/employeehad tendered resignation from service. 7.The respondent/ employee has stated that from June,2013 onwards, he was not allowed to sign the muster and inthe meantime from July, 2013 to December, 2013, he wassuffering from Cervical spondylosis and C.V. B.I. C vertigo. Hestates that on 21.12.2023, he went to the school alongwithmedical fitness certificate, but was not allowed to resumeduties. He alleges that he had issued letters and remaindersfrom January to March, 2014 requesting the petitioners topermit him to join duties. He has further stated that fromMay, 2013 to January, 2015, the said problem relapsed.According to him, when he went to resume service in January,2013, he was not again allowed to join duties. He states thatin such circumstance, he made application under the Right toInformation Act, demanding copies of muster roll of the 6wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022school from the year, 2005 to 2014-15. It is stated thatinitially, the documents were not provided by the Headmaster, who is the Public Information Officer of the school. Itis stated that subsequently on appeal being filed, documentswere provided by the Head Master vide letter dated15.05.2015. The respondent/employee states that he realizedthat his undated notice of resignation and resignation letterwere misused on receiving relevant documents from Headmaster on 15.05.2015. He states that he made furthercorrespondence for obtaining copies of the resignation letters,which were not provided and therefore, he madecommunication with the office of Deputy Director and on hisintervention, copies of the notice of resignation, resignationletter and resolution by the management were provided tohim. 8.The respondent/employee filed the appeal challengingthe resolution dated 21.07.2013, passed by thepetitioner/management, accepting his alleged resignation.This resolution is challenged stating that the said resolutionamounts to otherwise termination. The notice of resignation 7wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022and the resignation letter bear the date 22.03.2013 and20.06.2013, respectively. The resignation letter dated20.06.2013 recites that the same is sent by registered post. 9.Petitioner appeared and filed reply opposing the appeal.It is his contention that the resignation was tendered by therespondent/employee of his own violation and that theresignation letter and the notice of resignation are genuinedocuments. It is stated in the written statement that notice ofresignation and resignation letter are in the handwriting ofthe respondent/employee and the resignation letter isreceived by registered post. It is stated that therespondent/employee was interested in running privatecoaching classes and that he and his wife had started coachingclasses under the name and style of Dnyanesh CoachingClasses, which was the actual reason for therespondent/employee tendering resignation from service. Alladverse allegations in the memorandum of appeal weredenied by the respondent.10.It will be pertinent to mention that there was a delay infiling of the appeal. As a consequence of this, the 8wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022respondent/employee had filed an application forcondonation of delay. The said application was allowed bythe learned Tribunal. 11.The order of condonation of delay was challenged bythe petitioners by filing of petition, being Writ PetitionNo.9024 of 2019, which was partly allowed vide order dated24.07.2019 by maintaining the order of condonation of delayand directing that the respondent/employee will not beentitled to back wages from the date of alleged termination till21.09.2015, i.e. the date of filing of appeal, in the event theappeal was allowed.12.The learned Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal videjudgment and order dated 20.04.2022, inter alia quashing andsetting aside the alleged resignation letter dated 20.06.2013and resolution dated 21.07.2013, accepting the same andfurther issuing directions to the petitioners (respondents inappeal) to reinstate the respondent/employee in service withcontinuity and other benefits without back wages.13.The learned Tribunal has observed that the datesmentioned in the notice of resignation and the resignation 9wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022letter appear to be incorporated afterwords. It is observedthat the dates did not appear to be written in continuity whilewriting the letter. It is observed that although, the dates aswell as other contents of the letter are in blue ink, the date iswritten by using some different pen. It is observed thatshades of blue ink in which the contents of the notice ofresignation and resignation letters are written and the shadeof ink in which the dates are mentioned thereon are different.The learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on affidavit ofone P.T. Pawar, who appears to be a signatory to theresolution of 21.07.2013 as President of the trust, underwhose Chairmanship, the meeting dated 21.07.2013 is statedto be conducted. The said Shri Pawar has stated that no suchmeeting was held in which the resignation tendered byemployee was accepted.14.In view of such findings, the learned Tribunal deemed itappropriate to grant relief of reinstatement in service withcontinuity on arriving at finding that the resignation letter wasnot a genuine resignation. However, the learned Tribunal hasnot granted relief of back wages to the respondent/employee 10wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022on the ground that he had not pleaded in the memorandum ofappeal that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere from thedate of termination of service and thereafter.15.Mr. V. D. Salunke, the learned Advocate for thepetitioner criticises the judgment by contending that therespondent/employee had initially issued notice ofresignation, which was followed by a resignation letter. Hecontends that admittedly both these documents are in thehand writing of the respondent/employee. He argues that theresignation letter is in fact received by registered post. Hetherefore contends that the learned Tribunal ought to haveaccepted the case of the petitioners that therespondent/employee had tendered resignation voluntarily.He further contends that the dates in the resignation letter arenot written in different ink. He contends that the same are inthe hand writing of the respondent/employee. He furthersubmits that in any case, the resignation letter was received byregistered post, which rules out any possibility of mischief bythe management.16.Mr. Salunke further argues that the learned Tribunal 11wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022has erred in placing reliance on affidavit filed by the Presidentof the society. He contends that such affidavits cannot be readin evidence. According to Mr. Salunke, if the respondent/employee desired to place reliance on the affidavit, thePresident ought to have been examined as a witness so as toenable petitioners to conduct his cross-examination. Mr.Salunke further contends that the respondent/employee hadnot disputed that tuition classes were being run in the name ofhis wife. His contention is that explanation of petitioners thatrespondent wanted to tender resignation for running thetuition classes alongwith his wife should have been acceptedby the learned Tribunal.17.The above submissions are made by Mr. Salunke,without prejudice to his principal contention that appealagainst resignation is not maintainable. He contends that theSchool Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to hold that theresignation is not a genuine document. The contention of Mr.Salunke is that jurisdiction of the School Tribunal is restrictedto entertain appeals against dismissal or removal from serviceor otherwise termination. He contends that resignation by an 12wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022employee does not fall within the jurisdiction of the learnedTribunal.18.Per contra, Mr. Godbole, the learned Advocate for therespondent/employee argues that creation of false resignationand making show of acceptance of the same amounts to‘otherwise termination’ and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction toentertain appeal filed by an employee of a private schoolraising grievance with respect to otherwise termination. Hecontends that the preliminary objection raised by thepetitioners is liable to be rejected.19.As regards merits of the matter, the learned Advocatecontends that a clear finding of fact is recorded by the learnedTribunal that there is change in ink in the dates mentioned inthe notice of resignation and resignation letter. It is hiscontention that it has all throughout been his case that thepetitioner/management had obtained undated notice ofresignation and resignation letter from the respondent/employee at the time of appointment. The learned Advocatecontends that a pure finding of fact is recorded by the learnedTribunal, regarding change in ink and discontinuity in writing, 13wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022which should not and rather cannot disturbed by this Court inexercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India. It is his contention that the learnedTribunal has recorded findings of fact on proper appreciationof evidence and re-appreciation of evidence will not bepermissible having regard to scope of jurisdiction of thepresent petition.20.Mr. Godbole further contends that having allowed theappeal directing reinstatement in service with continuity, thelearned Tribunal has erred in not awarding back wages forwant of pleadings that the respondent/employee was notgainfully employed elsewhere after termination of his services.In this regard, he states that although, said statement is notmade in the memorandum of appeal, a separate affidavit isfiled confirming that the petitioner was not gainfullyemployed, after his services were terminated as aforesaid.The learned Advocate states that the learned Tribunal haserred in not awarding back wages to the respondent/employee. It is his contention that once termination is foundto be illegal and is set aside, relief of back wages must follow 14wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022as a matter of course.21.With respect to the submission regarding back wages,the contention of Mr. Salunke, the learned Advocate for thepetitioner/management is that the respondent employee hadin fact tendered resignation because he wanted to run privatetuition classes alongwith his wife and therefore, it is obviousthat he was all the while in gainful employment and istherefore not entitled to back wages, even if the judgment andorder passed by the School Tribunal with respect toreinstatement in service is maintained.22.Heard the rival submissions as aforesaid. There is aserious dispute between the parties with respect to thegenuineness of the resignation. The learned Tribunal hasrecorded categorical finding that dates in the notice ofresignation and resignation letter are mentioned subsequentlyin a different ink. It appears from the record and proceedingof the learned Tribunal that the original documents wereproduced before the learned Tribunal and after the hearingwas concluded, the same were returned to thepetitioner/management. The petitioner/management had 15wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022produced the original record for perusal of this Court. ThisCourt has also perused the original notice of resignation dated22.03.2013 and resignation letter dated 20.06.2013. Perusalof the resignation letter dated 20.06.2013 will demonstratethat words ‘jftLVj ,-Mh- us’ (by registered A.D.) are clearlywritten in a different ink. As regards the dates in the notice ofresignation dated 22.03.2013 and letter of resignation dated20.06.2013, it needs to be mentioned that the dates andcontents of letter are written by a ball pen. The contents ofsaid letters appear to be written by a pen which has slightlythicker point than the point of the pen by which dates arementioned. There also appears to be a slight change in thecolour of ink. 23.The learned School Tribunal has formed an opinion onperusal of the original documents regarding change of ink andhas arrived at a finding of fact that the dates have beenmentioned subsequently in the notice of resignation and in theresignation letter. The finding of fact which is recorded by thelearned Tribunal appears to be a probable finding on perusalof the originals. This Court finds no reason to arrive at a 16wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022different conclusion with respect to this finding of fact.24.Perusal of the resignation letter further indicates thatbelow the date, there was a line exactly below the date28.06.2013. It is apparent that whitener is applied over thesaid line and thereafter, date 28.06.2013 is written above thesaid line. The whitener is not visible very obviously. Thework is done with some finesse. However, on minuteobservation of the document, it is clear that there was a linedrawn in the resignation letter earlier over which, whitener isapplied and the date is mentioned.25.Apart from this, there is a clear change of ink inmentioning the words by registered A.D. in the resignationletter dated 20.06.2013. In this regard, it needs to bementioned that Section 7 of the MEPS Act provide that aresignation letter is required to be sent by registered post. Itappears that word registered A.D. is incorporatedsubsequently in the letter in view of the said provision.26.Mr. Salunke, the learned Advocate for the petitionercontends that the possibility of the respondent/employeemischievously issuing the resignation letter by mentioning the 17wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022words by registered A.D. in different ink cannot be ruled out.He states that there is no evidence to suggest that the allegedinterpolation is by the management. The contention is liableto be rejected for more than one reasons. First of all, it is notthe case of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal that theemployee had deliberately written the words by registeredpost in a different ink. Secondly, the date also appears tohave been mentioned subsequently in different ink.27.As regards the other contention of the learned Advocatefor the petitioners that appeal is not maintainable in case ofresignation, the said contention is liable to be rejected. It iswell settled by a catena of decisions of this Court thatobtaining resignation in a wrongful manner amounts tounlawful termination of services, which can be made subjectmatter of appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. There areseveral decisions where this Court has set aside resignationtreating it to be otherwise termination. In this regard,reference can be made to the judgment in the matter of ShriSant SawtaMali Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Vs.State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 529 and
Decision
18wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022Bahujan Vikas Mandal, Akola Vs. Manda Vithalrao Parsutkar,reported in 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 203. In the matter of BahujanVikas Mandal this Court has taken judicial notice of the factthat the managements adopt practice of obtaining resignationletters from the employees while issuing appointment ordersin their favour.28.In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion thatthe explanation of the respondent/employee that he had sentanother letter dated 20.06.2013 to the Head Master askinghim to provide the attendance register to him in order toenable him to sign the same and envelope of the said letterwas misused to create an impression that a resignation letterwas sent in the said envelope by registered post appears to beplausible explanation which the learned School Tribunal hasaccepted. This Court does not find any reason to take anydifferent view in view of the evidence, which is available onrecord.29.The findings recorded by the learned School Tribunalare findings of fact which are based on appreciation ofevidence. The findings are not based on no evidence. The 19wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022findings cannot be said to be perverse. This Court cannot takea different view on re-appreciation of evidence.30.In view of reasons mentioned above, it appears thatview taken by the learned Tribunal is a possible view. ThisCourt has no reason to interfere with findings of fact recordedby the learned Tribunal. The order impugned directingreinstatement in service does not warrant any interference.31.As regards back wages, the claim is denied by thelearned Tribunal on the ground that the employee has notpleaded that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere aftertermination of his services. The learned Counsel for theemployee has drawn attention to rejoinder affidavit dated30.11.2021 filed by the employee in the appeal, wherein aspecific statement is made that the employee was not gainfullyemployed elsewhere since the date of otherwise terminationof his services. The learned School Tribunal has denied therelief of back wages for want of pleadings regarding nongainful employment, which is contrary to the record. Themanagement has also referred to material which may give riseto inference that the employee was conducting tuition classes 20wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022and was gainfully employed. It will be appropriate that theTribunal revisits the issue of back wages in the light ofaforesaid and other material on record.32.Writ Petition No.12302 of 2022 filed by the employeechallenging denial of back wages therefore needs to be partlyallowed by remanding the matter to learned Tribunal todecide the said issue afresh in the light of material on recordand law on the subject. It will be open for parties to amendthe pleadings with respect to back wages and lead furtherevidence on the said aspect, if they so desire.33.Writ Petition No.6506 of 2022 is dismissed.34.Writ Petition No.12302 of 2022 is partly allowed infollowing terms:-i.Order dated 20.04.2022, passed by thelearned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur inAppeal No.10 of 2019 is quashed only to the extentof denial of back wages to the appellant in the saidappeal.ii.Matter is remanded back to the learnedSchool Tribunal for deciding the issue of backwages afresh after hearing the parties. 21wp-6506-2022 with wp-12302-2022iii.Parties will appear before the learned SchoolTribunal on 11.08.2025. Parties to note thatseparate notice for appearance will not be issued.iv.The learned School Tribunal is directed todecide the issue of back wages as expeditiously aspossible and in any case on or before 31.12.2025.35.Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ).At this stage, learned Counsel for thepetitioner/management in Writ Petition No.6506 of 2025prays for stay to the order for period of six weeks. 2.However, in view of findings by the learned Tribunalthat the notice and letter of resignation are manipulateddocuments, the prayer for continuation of interim relief isrejected.( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )Rushikesh/2025