THE SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, U.P. AND ORS. v. LAUT MOHAN UPADHYAY AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 976

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

THE SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, U.P. AND ORS. v. LAUT MOHAN UPADHYAY AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

THE SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, U. P. AND ORS. _,v. LAUT MOHAN UPADHYAY AND ANR. APRIL 09, 2007 [A. K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.

] Service Law-Resignation-Allegations by a girl student of indecent behaviour against Lecturer on probation-Resignation tendered-Acceptance by Board of Governors-Challenge by lecturer on the ground that he had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance-High Court set aside the order of acceptance and directed re-instatement-Correctness of-Held: Lecturer in his letter ofresignation indicated unequivocal intention to resign with immediate effect-There is no whisper of withdrawal ofresignation by Lecturer-Letter of acceptance was accepted by the Competent Authority- Inquiry reports clearly show that Lecturer was guilty-Lecturer being on probation his services could have been terminated for unsuitability but the Principal and the Competent Authority being reasonable accepted his ':\ resignation-Hence, order ofHigh Court not justified and as such set aside. A girl student of the College filed a complaint against respondent no. . \ ..

I-Lecturer on probation, alleging indecent behaviour with her. Appellantno. 2-Principal of the College called for inquiry in the matter. On the same day respondent no 2 submitted his letter of resignation to the Principal requesting him to accept it immediately. Principal accepted the request and forwarded it to the Board ofGovernors for approval. On the other hand the respondent ~ wrote a letter to the State Governor and others that the Principal had pressurized the girl student to lodge false and frivolous complaint. Thereafter, ~- State Government got an inquiry conducted and the charges of indecent behaviour against the lecturer by the girl were found correct and allegation against the Principal was wrong. Thereafter, the Principal was communicated that Board ofGovernors had accepted the letter of resignation and respondent no. 1 was informed ofthe same. Respondent no.

I challenged the order since he had withdrawn resignation before its acceptance and as such order of acceptance by the Authority was illegal. High Court set aside the order of .. ,,, I acceptance of the letter of resignation by respondent no. 1 and directed the -. ' appellants to reinstate respondent no. I in service. Hence the present appeal. •' SECRETARY. TECHNICAL EDUCATION. U. P. v. LALIT MOHAN UPADHYAY '~ Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. The impugned order of the High Court is erroneous, not legal and justified and thus, cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 8 and 20) (982-D-E; 988-E) I. 2. The State Government appointed Directorofan Engineering Institute to hold independent inquiry on the subject of factual analysis and comments )on the complaints made by employees and students of the College. Director conducted detailed inquiry on the issues including the issue in regard to the objectionable behaviour of the Lecturer, with the girl student in the Hospital.

The Director observed that after going through the photocopies of the diary maintained by the girl student her complaint was believed to be true and the behaviour ofthe Lecturer with a girl student was quite objectionable with evil designs as a result thereof the student remained in mental tension and frustration. The Director stated that in the absence of any eyewitness respondent no. I could not prove that he was forced or pressurized by the Principal to submit his letter of resignation. The Director concluded that the statem~nt ofrespondent no. I that he had been harassed and tormented by the r Principal and his wife could not be believed because he himself admitted that he always had good relations with all the officers. A Lecturer ofChemistry during inquiry made a statement that on the request of respondent no. I he took his letter of resignation to the residence of the Principal and respondent no. I repeatedly said that he did not want to stay in the College.

The Principal was aware ofthe fact that respondent no. I had called his father as he wanted to leave the College on the same day with his father. The Director observed that it was just probable that the Principal might have asked respondent no. I to give his resignation and leave the College for maintaining discipline and fair environment at the College campus. [Para I3] (984-E-G; 985-A-D) .. ,. 1. 3. Itappears from the record that the District Magistrate had appointed Sub-Divisional Magistrate as an Inquiry Officer for conducting inquiry on the points raised by respondent no. 1 in his complaint against the Principal. The Magisterial Inquiry was got conducted by the District Magistrate in compliance to the letter addressed by the Secretary, Technica\Education Department to the District Magistrate. (Para 14) (985-F] _,,.. _ 1. 4. The record also shows that Joint Secretary to the Government of U. P.

conveyed to the Principal the order ofthe Chairman, Board ofGovernors whereby the letter of resignation of respondent No. 1 was accepted. Similarly, LN, who by that time had resumed the charge of Principal of the College ~ ·"'· 978 SUPREME COURT R'EPORTS [2007) 4 S. C. R. informed respondent no. 1 that the Chairman, Board ofGovernors had accepted his letter of resignation. [Para 16] [986-F-G] 1. 5. The general principle is that a Governor servant/or functionary who canno~ under the conditions of his service/or office by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, gives up his service/or office normally the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure gets terminated when it is accepted by the competent authority. Thus, having regard to the letter of resignation in the instant case, there can be no doubt that respondent no. 1 had in his letter indicated his unequivocal intention to resign in the clearest possible terms with immediate effect.

The resignation was tendered by respondent no. 1 voluntarily without any pressure or coercion from the Principal of the College as recorded by all the Inquiry Officers in their respective fact finding reports and the counter allegation of respondent no. 1 against the Principal was found unwarranted and unfounded. The Principal in fact, had protected the reputation, saved the future career and unnecessary humiliation and embellishment of respondent no. 1 from the students, staff members and teachers ofthe College by permitting him to leave the College immediately before his letter of resignation was forwarded to the competent authority for its acceptance. [Para 17] [986-H; 987-A) 1. 6. There is no whisper in the representation/complaint submitted by respondent no. I to the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary~ Technical E against the Principal. The Magisterial Inquiry was got conducted by the ... ,. District Magistrate in compliance to the letter dated 11/12. 10.

1993 addressed by the Secretary Technical Education Department to the District Magistrate. 15. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, S. D. M. /Inquiry Officer, Ranikhet, in his report dated 12. 12. 1993 submitted to the District Magistrate, stated that on 18. 03. 1993 Shri L. M. Upadhyay took Ms. Geetanjali along with other students to the Civil Hospital, Ranikhet. He spent one night in the hospital ward with patient Ms. Geetanjali. Shri Upadhyay also accepted that when Ms. Geetanjali was ..... , f' feeling severe pain, he applied medicine on her private organs with his hands and he shifted her from one bed to another bed despite her prgte;&t and " ' t ~ objecti_on. He asked Ms. Hema Punetha, Library Clerk, to leave the hospital . ,. , during night time. The report would reveal that serious allegations of misbehaviour and misdeeds of Shri Upadhyay towards Ms. Geetanjali were proved by the evidence of four other girls. The allegation of Shri L. M.

Upadhyay that the Principal hatched a conspiracy against him and got the j letter of resignation forcibly written from him, was not found true by the Sub- I- Divisional Magistrate. The S. D. M. stated that when he discussed the entire matter with the students and took their written statements, he came to know I that Shri L. M. Upadhyay could not dare to face the students and the teachers . ,. ~ in the College, therefore, he on his own submitted the resignation and requested ' the Principal to accept the same immediately so that he could quietly leave the College campus before his misdeeds would come to be known to the majority Of the students and other teachers of the College. The S. D. M. observed that the Principal of the College was an incapable Administrator and was not competent to run the administration of the College smoothly. The . ( Report (Annexure P-9) of the S. D. M. was submitted by Shri R. K. Singh, District Magistrate, Almora, vide letter dated 15. 12. 1993 to Shri R.

K. Sharma, Secretary, U. P. Government, Technical Education Department. The contents of the letter reveal that Shri R. K. Singh, District Magistrate, requested the Secretary that it would be in the best interest of the Institute if Dr. M. C. Srivastava, '\the Principal, should be shifted from the College so that the ongoing agitation of the students and the employees since September 1993 could be stopped. We find on record letter of Dr. N. N. Khan, Lecturer in Chemistry, dated 24. 11. 1993 (Annexure P-5) written to the S. D. M. , Ranikhet, stating that Shri L. M. Upadhyay had resigned on his own and the said letter of resignation was handed over to him to be delivered to the Principal of KEC. 16. The record also shows that Shri S. K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government ofU. P. , vide registered letter dated 17. 01. 1994 (Annexure P- 6) conveyed to _the Principal the order of the Chairman, Board of Governors ,. whereby the letter of resignation of Shri Upadhyay dated 06. 09.

1993 was "" accepted. Similarly, Shri L. N. Paliwal, who by that time had resumed the charge ofpie Principal ofKEC vide registered letter dated 29. 01. 1994 (Annexure P-7) informed Shri L. M. Upadhyay through Dr. U. C. Upadhyay, Central School, Ranikhet, that the Chairman, Board ofGovernors, KEC, had accepted r his letter of resignation. 17. The general principle is that a Governmenrservant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions ofhis service/or office, by his own unilateral f- ~act of tendering resignation, gives up his service/or office normally the tender ~ j SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION. U. P. v. LALIT MOHAN UPADHYAY (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, I. I 987 r ofresignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure gets terminated ·when it is accepted by the competent authority. Thus, having regard to the letter of resignation (Annexure P-2), in the present case, there can be no doubt that Shri. L. M. Upadhyay had in his letter dated 06. 09.

1993, indicated his unequivocal intention to resign in the clearest possible terms with immediate effect. The resignation was tendered by Shri. Upadhyay voluntarily without any pressure or coercion from the Principal of the College as recorded by all the Inquiry Officers in their respective fact finding reports and the counter 1' allegation of Shri. Upadhyay against the Principal was found unwarranted and unfounded. The Principal in fact, had protected the reputation, saved the future career and unnecessary humiliation and embellishment of Shri. Upadhyay from the students, staff members and teachers of the Colleg~ by permitting him to leave the College immediately before his letter of resignation was forwarded to the competent authority for its acceptance. 18. We have carefully gone through the representation/complaint dated 10. 09. 1993 (Annexure P-3) submitted by Shri L. M. Upadhyay to the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Technical Education.

There is no whisper in the said representation that he intended to withdraw his letter of ( resignation dated 06. 09. 1993. Thus, finding ofthe High Court that Shri L. M. Upadhyay had withdrawn his letter of resignation dated 06. 09. 1993 by subsequent letter dated 10. 09. 1993 was not born out from the record. Similarly, the High Court is not right in holding that the letter of resignation dated 06. 09. 1993 submitted by Shri L. M. Upadhyay was accepted by the State Government and not by the Board of Governors is not tenable. As noticed above, the letter of resignation tendered by Shri L. M. Upadhyay to the Principal was forwarded by the Principal on the same day to the Board of - Governors for its acceptance with immediate effect with a request to waive the period of notice of one month required to be given by the employee .. ,. before tendering his resignation.

The documents marked as Annexures P-6 and P-7 would clearly and plainly establish that the letter of resignation tendered by Shri L. M. Upadhyay was accepted by the competent authority after receipt of the inquiry reports of the inquiry officers. It is not in dispute that the Chief Secretary was the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the College and the Joint Secretary of the Department of Technical Education, State of U. P. , had only conveyed the decision of the acceptance of the resignation taken by the Chairman, Board ofGovernors, to the Principal ofthe College. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the letter of resignation ofShri L. M. Upadhyay was accepted by the Principal ofthe KEC or by the State Government as submitted by respondent No .. i. . I \ 19. There cannot be any quarrel on the settled principle of law that an ""< employee is entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance by the Icompetent authority.

We have gone through the decisions of this Court in Mis J. K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co'! 'pany Ltd. , Kanpur v. State of U. P. & Ors. , AIR (1990) SC 1808 and Union ofIndia & Ors. v.. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors. , [1978] 2 SCC 30 I relied upon by the learned senior counsel for respondent No. I. He contended that before terminating the services of the respondent No. I on the basis of the complaint of the girl student and subsequent inquiry reports of the Inquiry Officers, it was obligatory upon the " Authority to hold regular departmental inquiry for the alleged misconduct and then to proceed against respondent No. I in accordance with relevant Rules. We are afraid to accept this submission. Admittedly, Shri L. M. Upadhyay was on probation and the Authority was empowered to judge his fitness for work or suitability to the post ofteacher at the time ofacceptance ofhis resignation. ,_ In our view, the services of Shri L. M. Upadhyay during probation period .

, could have been terminated by the Authority, but the Principal and the Board of Governors had adopted a reasonable and fair mode of accepting his pending letter ofresignation instead ofterminating his services for unsuitability. 20. For the above-said reasons, this appeal deserves to. be accepted and ---~ it is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 02. 11. 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in CMWP No. 10058 of 1994 is not legal and justified. It is set aside accordingly. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. NJ. Appeal allowed. l -< \