Shriram Manohar Bande vs. Uktranti Mandal (Supreme Court, 25 April 2024)
Background
Shriram Manohar Bande was employed as an Assistant Teacher at Vasantrao Naik High School, managed by Uktranti Mandal. On 10 October 2017, he submitted his resignation. Before any formal communication of acceptance, he attempted to withdraw his resignation on 25 October 2017 and communicated this withdrawal on 3 November 2017. Despite this, he was denied re-entry to the school and was formally relieved of his duties on 27 November 2017. Bande challenged his termination before the School Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, declaring the termination illegal and ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages. The management appealed, and the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, upholding the validity of the resignation acceptance and Bande’s termination. Bande then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether the resolution dated 13 October 2017, accepting Bande’s resignation, was a fabricated document.
Whether the acceptance of resignation complied with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and associated rules.
Whether the withdrawal of resignation before communication of acceptance rendered the termination invalid.
Arguments
Appellant (Bande): Argued that only the management committee could accept his resignation, and the school committee’s involvement was improper. He contended the acceptance resolution was fabricated and that his withdrawal of resignation before its acceptance or communication should render the termination void.
Respondents (Uktranti Mandal): Maintained that the management committee had properly accepted the resignation before the school committee’s resolution and that the resignation was voluntary. They argued the Tribunal erred in dismissing the authenticity of the acceptance resolution and that the withdrawal after acceptance was not permissible.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and pleadings. The Court held:
The resolution accepting the resignation was not fabricated; it was properly recorded and referenced in the management’s written statement and produced during evidence.
Under Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40, there is no statutory requirement for the management to communicate acceptance of resignation to the employee for it to be effective, provided acceptance occurs before withdrawal.
Relying on North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, the Court clarified that once the competent authority accepts a resignation, the employee cannot withdraw it, even if the acceptance has not yet been communicated.
The Tribunal erred in concluding the documents were fabricated without adequate basis, and the High Court rightly set aside its findings.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, dismissing Bande’s appeal. It held that the acceptance of resignation was valid, not vitiated by non-communication, and that withdrawal after acceptance was legally ineffective. The Court found no procedural irregularity or mala fide in the management’s actions and upheld the termination.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that under the MEPS Act, resignation becomes effective upon acceptance by the competent authority, even if not immediately communicated to the employee. It also underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the limits of withdrawal rights after acceptance.
Citation: Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal & Ors., [2024] INSC 337, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 25 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments