Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher After Resignation Withdrawal: Shriram Manohar Bande vs. Uktranti Mandal & Ors. (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a resignation can be effective even if its acceptance is not communicated to the employee before the employee withdraws the resignation.

CASE TYPE: Service Law – Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977

Case Name: Shriram Manohar Bande vs. Uktranti Mandal & Ors.

Judgment Date: April 25, 2024

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 25, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 337

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can an employee withdraw their resignation after it has been accepted by the employer, even if the acceptance hasn’t been formally communicated? This was the central question before the Supreme Court in the case of Shriram Manohar Bande vs. Uktranti Mandal & Ors. The court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and related rules to determine the validity of a teacher’s termination after he attempted to withdraw his resignation. The two-judge bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar delivered the judgment, with Justice Aravind Kumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Shriram Manohar Bande, was an Assistant Teacher at Vasantrao Naik High School, which is run by the respondent educational society, Uktranti Mandal. On October 10, 2017, Bande submitted his resignation. However, on October 25, 2017, he sent a letter to withdraw his resignation, which was posted on November 3, 2017. When Bande went to rejoin his duties on November 23, 2017, he was not allowed to sign the muster roll. On November 27, 2017, he received a letter stating he was relieved from service.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Bande challenged his termination before the School Tribunal under Section 8 of the MEPS Act, arguing that his withdrawal of resignation was not considered. The Tribunal set aside the termination, finding that the school had fabricated documents to show compliance. The school appealed to the High Court of Bombay, which reversed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the resignation was validly accepted. The High Court noted that non-communication of acceptance does not invalidate the resolution. Bande then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

Section 7 of the MEPS Act outlines the procedure for resignation by employees:

“7. Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools: If any employee intends to resign from his post in any private school, at any time after the appointed date, he shall draw up a letter of resignation in duplicate and sign both copies of that letter and put the date thereon. He may then forward one copy to the Management by registered post and keep the other copy with him.”

Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules specifies the notice period for resignation:

“40. Resignation. –
(1) A permanent employee may leave service after giving three calendar months’ notice and a non-permanent employee may leave service after giving one calendar month’s notice. The Management may, however, allow an employee to leave service earlier on payment of pay (excluding allowances) for three months, or as the case may be, one month in lieu of notice by the employee. The amount in lieu of notice shall be restricted to the pay for the period by which the notice period falls short.
(2) If any Management allows an employee to leave service earlier either without due notice or without making payment of pay in lieu of notice as specified in sub-rule (1), a proportionate amount of pay in lieu of notice shall be deducted from the grant due to the school concerned.
(3) An employee entitled to vacation shall not give notice of resignation during the vacation or so as to cover any part of the vacation. The notice of resignation shall not be given within a month after the beginning of the first term of the year.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Shriram Manohar Bande):

• The High Court erred by not acknowledging that only the management committee, not the school committee, had the authority to accept the resignation under the MEPS Act and Rules.
• The High Court failed to recognize the inconsistencies in the management’s claims regarding who approved the resignation. Initially, they claimed the school committee approved it, and later, the management committee.
• The resolution dated October 13, 2017, was a fabricated document, as the Tribunal rightly noted.
• The resignation letter dated October 10, 2017, was withdrawn by a letter dated October 25, 2017, and this crucial fact was not considered.

Respondents’ Arguments (Uktranti Mandal & Ors.):

• The Tribunal erred in drawing adverse inferences about the resolutions, which were presented during the evidence stage.
• The requirements of Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules were fully met.
• The resignation was first accepted by the management committee on October 13, 2017, and then by the school committee on October 14, 2017.
• The resignation was voluntary and accepted before the withdrawal attempt.
• The written statement clearly mentioned the resolution dated October 13, 2017, and therefore, it was not an afterthought.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant is justified in claiming that the resolution dated 13.10.2017 is a ‘manufactured’ document by the respondent?
2. Whether there is any non-compliance with the provisions under the MEPS Act and Rules in acceptance of the resignation letter of the appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court relied on the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [(2003) 5 SCC 455], stating that “resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated as long as rules or guidelines governing the resignation do not mandate such acceptance of resignation is to be communicated.” The Court emphasized that Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules do not require communication of acceptance.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the voluntary nature of the resignation, the procedural compliance by the school management, and the legal precedent set in North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [(2003) 5 SCC 455]. The court emphasized that the MEPS Act and Rules do not mandate communication of acceptance for a resignation to be valid. The court also observed that the appellant’s attempt to withdraw the resignation was an afterthought, made after realizing his mistake.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following steps:

• The court determined that the resignation was indeed voluntary, as admitted by the appellant.
• The court found that the management committee had accepted the resignation on October 13, 2017, and the school committee on October 14, 2017.
• The court observed that the MEPS Act and Rules do not require the communication of acceptance for the resignation to be valid.
• The court relied on the precedent set in North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [(2003) 5 SCC 455] to conclude that the resignation was effective upon acceptance.

The court considered the argument that the acceptance of the resignation was not communicated to the appellant before he attempted to withdraw it. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that neither Section 7 of the MEPS Act nor Rule 40 of the Rules mandates such communication. The court held that the resignation was effective upon its acceptance by the management committee on October 13, 2017, and by the school committee on October 14, 2017.

The court also examined the appellant’s argument that the resolution dated October 13, 2017, was a fabricated document. However, the court found that the resolution was mentioned in the written statement of the respondents and was also presented during the evidence stage. Therefore, the court concluded that the resolution was valid.

The court stated, “In fact, there is no ground before us, which was not already dealt with by the High Court in its reasoning and finding, however, we have gone into the facts in detail and reviewed the judgments of the courts below in quite detail only to satisfy our conscience that no injustice has been meted out to appellant.”

The court further noted, “At this juncture, it becomes necessary to point out that as per service jurisprudence, the employment is terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority. The appellant, in this case, tendered his resignation letter on 10.10.2017 and this resignation letter came be accepted on 14.10.2017, hence the date of termination of the services of the appellant for the purpose of adjudication would be 14.10.2017.”

The court also quoted, “non-communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided, there is, in fact, an acceptance before the withdrawal. It is also held that it is not open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority”, while referring to North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [(2003) 5 SCC 455].

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• A resignation is effective upon acceptance by the appropriate authority, even if the acceptance is not communicated to the employee, provided there is an acceptance before the withdrawal.
• The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and related rules do not mandate the communication of acceptance for a resignation to be valid.
• Employees should be aware that once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn unless the rules specifically allow it.
• Management committees and school committees must maintain proper documentation and follow due procedure while accepting resignations.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a resignation becomes effective upon its acceptance by the appropriate authority, regardless of whether the acceptance is communicated to the employee, as long as the acceptance occurs before any attempt to withdraw the resignation. This judgment reaffirms the principles established in North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [(2003) 5 SCC 455] and clarifies that the MEPS Act and Rules do not require communication of acceptance for a resignation to be valid.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal of Shriram Manohar Bande. The court ruled that the termination of the teacher was valid because his resignation had been accepted before he attempted to withdraw it. The court emphasized that the MEPS Act and Rules do not require the communication of acceptance for a resignation to be effective. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedures and understanding the implications of submitting a resignation.