10 June 2024


High Court of Bombay

Uktranti Mandal and Ors. Vs. Shriram Manohar Bande and Ors.




Resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated

By present writ petition, the Petitioners i.e. the Management and the School have challenged judgment, passed by the School Tribunal, whereby oral termination of service of Respondent No. 1 has been set aside and the Petitioners have been directed to reinstate him with 50% back-wages, along with other consequential benefits.

The questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the Petitioners are justified in claiming that the resignation of Respondent No. 1 stood accepted by the Petitioners as per the provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules and whether non-communication of acceptance of resignation of respondent No. 1 would prove fatal, on a proper reading of the requirements of the MEPS Act and Rules.

The fact that the resignation of Respondent No. 1 was voluntary and this fact being accepted even by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order, clearly distinguishes the present case and it further shows that, even if the present case is to proceed on the basis that acceptance of resignation was not communicated to Respondent No. 1, it cannot be said that subsequent withdrawal of the resignation by letter, would ensure to the benefit of Respondent No. 1.

In the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and another Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, Supreme Court held that resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated as long as there is no Rule, which requires the acceptance of the resignation to be communicated, for the resignation to become effective. In the said case also, the resignation submitted by the employee was accepted, but, it was withdrawn before the acceptance could be communicated to the employee. Yet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the concerned Rules applicable to the organization did not specify that the resignation would become effective only after its acceptance was communicated to the employee, even if there is subsequent withdrawal of the resignation, it would be of no avail.

In the present case, this Court has already concluded that, the Petitioners had placed on record before the Tribunal pleadings and material to show that the resignation submitted by the Respondent No. 1 was indeed accepted as per the resolutions passed by the Management and the School Committee and that there was substantial compliance with the statutory requirements under the MEPS Act and Rules. Therefore, non-communication of acceptance would not make the resignation inoperative, merely because subsequently the Respondent No. 1 had withdrawn the resignation. The MEPS Act and Rules do not stipulate that the resignation would come into effect only after its acceptance is communicated to the employee. The Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Petition allowed.

Tags : Direction Reinstatement Legality

Share :