Delhi High Court
Guru Harkrishan Public School vs Directorate Of Education & Anr on 23 February, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 07.02.2026
Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 9568/2015, CM APPL. 22582/2015, CM APPL.
4926/2016 & CM APPL. 41170/2022
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL .....Petitioner
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr.
S.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Rimpy Rohilla,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Suresh
Chander, LA for DoE.
Respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by
the learned Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DST’)
whereby the appeal bearing Appeal No.31/2013 filed by the respondent
no.2/Sh. Babu Lal was allowed, and the office order dated 17.06.2009 vide
which the promotion of respondent no.2 to the post of Office
Superintendent was cancelled and acceptance of the resignation of
respondent no.2 by the Sub-Committee of the petitioner school dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 1 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
26.08.2010, was set aside and the respondent no.2 was reinstated with
immediate effect alongwith consequential benefits. Further, the petitioner
school was directed to decide and pass a speaking order on the
representation of respondent no.2 regarding back wages.
2. Briefly, the facts stated in the petition are as under:-
a) It is stated that the respondent no.2 had joined the petitioner school
as a Peon on 05.07.1991 and was confirmed after completing the
probation in the year 1992. In the year 1996, the respondent no.2 was
confirmed as an Office Assistant and was thereafter promoted to the
post of UDC in the year 1997. In the year 2001, respondent no.2 was
promoted to the post of Accountant. Subsequently, the respondent
no.2 was promoted as Office Superintendent (Accounts) with the
petitioner in the year 2008.
b) It is the case of the petitioner that on account of complaints against
the respondent no.2, he was demoted by the petitioner on
17.06.2009. The petitioner got an audit conducted and vide Report
dated 27.08.2009, the petitioner learnt that the respondent no.2 was
involved in financial mismanagement/embezzlement of the funds of
the petitioner school. Consequently, a show cause notice dated
26.10.2009 was issued to the respondent no.2. A reply dated
04.11.2009 to the said show cause notice was submitted by
respondent no.2. Upon consideration of the reply, the petitioner
deemed it fit to suspend respondent no.2 with immediate effect.
c) Assailing the suspension order dated 14.11.2009, the respondent no.2
preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 13566/2009, wherein vide
order dated 03.12.2009, this Court had restrained the operation of the
order of suspension. The petitioner stated that the respondent no.2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 2 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
had joined back its services, however on this issue, it appears there
were a lot of disputes and differences between the parties. The same
may not be germane to decide the present dispute.
d) Be that as it may, on 29.06.2010, the petitioner lodged a criminal
complaint which was registered as FIR No.190/2010 with PS Punjabi
Bagh arraigning respondent no.2 and Ms. Princee Kaur under
Sections 420/468/471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 alleging embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The
issue pertaining to the registration of FIR is also not relevant to the
present lis.
e) It is stated by the petitioner that respondent no.2 had submitted a
typed resignation letter on 25.07.2010. Thereafter, a handwritten
resignation letter dated 04.08.2010 was tendered by the respondent
no.2. On 06.08.2010, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent
no.1/Directorate of Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘DoE’)
informing about the resignation of respondent no.2 and requesting
for approval in terms of Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education
Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), which was
returned with a remark by DoE to attach the Minutes of the Meeting
of the Governing Body (the Managing Committee of the petitioner
school).
f) It is the case of the petitioner school that thereafter, vide Minutes of
the Meeting dated 20.08.2010, the Governing Body of the petitioner,
with the consent of DE-nominee, accepted the resignation tendered
by the respondent no.2. Simultaneously, it was decided to constitute
a 5-member Sub-Committee comprising the Chairman, Principal and
three (3) other members. Consequently, the said Sub-Committee,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 3 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
vide its Minutes of the Meeting held on 23.08.2010, asked the
respondent no.2 to appear before it on 26.08.2010 at 11:30 a.m, to
ascertain that he had resigned without any pressure from any quarter.
It is stated that on 26.08.2010, the respondent no.2 had appeared
before the said Sub-Committee and confirmed that he is resigning of
his own will and desire without any pressure, and also made an
annotation to that effect on his original handwritten resignation dated
04.08.2010, which was witnessed by the members of the Sub-
Committee. Upon its satisfaction, the Sub-Committee accepted the
voluntary resignation of respondent no.2. It is claimed that the
respondent no.2 also accepted the cheque bearing no.953046 dated
26.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,95,726/- as full and final payment of
dues without any protest whereafter, the said amount was duly
credited to respondent no.2 in his account. It is stated that the
resignation letter dated 04.08.2010 was accepted by the Governing
Body of the petitioner, being the competent authority, on 20.08.2010
and thereafter, by the Sub-Committee formed by the Governing
Body, on 26.08.2010.
g) Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have submitted a letter dated
07.09.2010 to the respondent no.1/DoE enclosing therewith the
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body as well as of the Sub-
Committee accepting the resignation tendered by the respondent
no.2. The DoE responded by directing the petitioner to enclose the
original resignation letter. Thereafter, by letter dated 23.09.2010, the
petitioner enclosed the original resignation letter of respondent no.2
and requested for approval of DoE in terms of Rule 114A of the
Rules.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 4 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
h) It is stated that by the letter dated 10.01.2011, the DoE had sought
clarification/information from respondent no.2 as to whether he has
any objection to grant of approval to acceptance of his resignation by
the petitioner’s authorities. In response whereto, respondent no.2
vide his letter dated 13.01.2011 informed the DoE that the said
resignation was submitted by him under force by the petitioner
school’s management and thus, was not voluntary.
i) The DoE sent a letter dated 15.01.2011 to the petitioner seeking its
comment regarding the representation dated 13.01.2011 received by
it from respondent no.2. In response, on 20.01.2011, the petitioner
clarified that the respondent no.2 had appeared before the Sub-
Committee and confirmed that his resignation is on his own free will
and desire, and had also made a handwritten annotation to that effect
in his original handwritten resignation letter dated 04.08.2010, which
was witnessed by all the members of the Sub-Committee. The
petitioner again enclosed the original resignation of respondent no.2
alongwith Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body as well as
of the Sub-Committee, for DoE’s approval in terms of Rule 114A of
the Rules.
j) However, the DoE, by the letter dated 23.03.2011, refused to grant
approval to the acceptance of resignation of respondent no.2 which
was communicated to it by the petitioner.
k) It is the allegation of respondent no.2 that despite the non-
acceptance/rejection of the acceptance by the DoE of the resignation
tendered by respondent no.2, he was not allowed to join the services
of the petitioner. It appears that aggrieved thereof, the respondent
no.2 had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 4661/2012. Vide order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 5 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
dated 14.08.2012, the Court had directed the petitioner school to
send communication to the respondent no.2 for joining duty within
15 days. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.05.2013, this Court had,
while observing that there being disputed questions of facts which
require evidence to be led by the parties, dismissed the said writ
petition as withdrawn granting liberty to respondent no.2 herein to
pursue his remedies before the appropriate Civil Court/Tribunal.
l) In terms of the liberty so granted, the respondent no.2 had filed an
appeal before the learned DST bearing Appeal No.31/2013 under
Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’). Vide impugned order dated 29.07.2015, the
learned DST allowed the appeal and set aside the office order dated
17.06.2009 demoting the respondent no.2 and acceptance of the
resignation of respondent no.2 by the Sub-Committee dated
26.08.2010, and thereby directed the petitioner to reinstate
respondent no.2 with immediate effect with all consequential
benefits.
m) It is this order dated 29.07.2015 of the learned DST which is assailed
in the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER SCHOOL:-
3. Mr. S. S. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner school submitted that the impugned order dated 29.07.2015
passed by the learned DST is unsustainable, both on facts as also on law
and ought to be set aside.
4. Learned senior counsel contended that the controversy revolves only
around the issue whether the DoE had any right, authority or jurisdiction to
reject the decision of the Governing Body of the petitioner to accept the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 6 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
resignation of respondent no.2 tendered on 04.08.2010. Another connecting
legal argument, according to him, which needs consideration of this Court
is as to whether the deeming fiction contemplated in Rule 114A of the
Rules would not become applicable to the facts of the present case as no
reply/response from the DoE was received within thirty (30) days of the
letters sent on 07.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 by the petitioner, informing the
DoE of the acceptance of the resignation of respondent no.2.
5. Learned senior counsel contended that a plain reading of Rule 114A
of the Rules leave no manner of doubt that in the absence of a response
from the DoE within thirty (30) days from the communication received by
it of the acceptance of resignation by the Governing Body, there is an
automatic deemed approval of DoE. He would contend that the Governing
Body (which is the Managing Committee of the petitioner) is the competent
authority which is to accept or reject the resignation letter tendered by any
employee. On that basis, he contended that since the provision is very clear,
there is no way the DoE could, vide its letter dated 23.03.2011, refuse to
grant approval to the resignation of respondent no.2.
6. On facts, Mr. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel stated that the
petitioner gained the knowledge that the respondent no.2 was indulging in
cheating, siphoning of funds and large scale irregularities in the financial
aspects of the petitioner when an audit report dated 27.08.2009 was tabled
before the Governing Body. He submitted that following such revelation, a
FIR bearing no.190/2010 dated 29.06.2010 was registered against
respondent no.2 under Sections 420/468/471/34, IPC. This Trial, he
informed, is still continuing. As a follow up, a show cause notice was
issued to respondent no.2 on 26.10.2009 which was replied to by
respondent no.2, vide communication dated 04.11.2009. Not convinced by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 7 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
the reply received, the petitioner suspended the respondent no.2 on
14.11.2009.
7. Learned senior counsel submitted that while certain inter se disputes
and litigations were continuing and pending, the respondent no.2 tendered
his resignation on 25.07.2010 which, according to him, was on account of
respondent no.2 being caught in the criminal activities. He also submitted
that in order to avoid any disciplinary action against him, respondent no.2
tendered a handwritten resignation letter dated 04.08.2010. He further
submitted that the said resignation was accepted by the Governing Body of
the petitioner in terms of the Rules, on 20.08.2010. He would contend that
the said acceptance on 20.08.2010 was fully compliant with the provisions
of the Act and in the presence of nominee of the DoE. The Governing Body
of the petitioner decided to constitute a five-member Sub-Committee to
ascertain that respondent no.2 had tendered his resignation without any
pressure. In terms whereof, respondent no.2 was required to appear before
the Sub-Committee on 26.08.2010. It was submitted that the respondent
no.2 had indeed appeared on the said date and expressed the voluntary
nature of the resignation tendered and in lieu of such resignation, received a
cheque of Rs.1,95,726/- as full and final settlement, which was also
encashed by him.
8. Learned senior counsel offered an argument that once a voluntary
resignation was tendered by the employee and accepted by the Managing
Committee of the petitioner on 20.08.2010 and further re-affirmed by the
Sub-Committee on 26.08.2010, without the respondent no.2 withdrawing
his resignation before such acceptance, no order in the nature of the letter
dated 23.03.2011 refusing approval could at all be passed by the DoE. In
that context, he would contend that the reliance of the learned DST on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 8 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
letter dated 23.03.2011 of the DoE is contrary to the law and vitiates the
entire impugned order.
9. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel would vehemently contend
that respondent no.2 had tendered his voluntary resignation on 04.08.2010;
which was accepted by the by the Governing Body (Managing Committee)
of petitioner on 20.08.2010; re-affirmed on 26.08.2010 by the Sub-
Committee formed by the Governing Body; the communication whereof to
the DoE having been sent on 23.09.2010 and received by the DoE on
24.09.2010; and having regard to the fact that no approval was received
from the DoE within thirty (30) days therefrom as per the requirement of
Rule 114A of the Rules, the deeming fiction envisaged in the said Rule
114A would be effective and the approval of the DoE would be deemed to
have been accorded. In that context, learned senior counsel would contend
that the refusal by DoE, vide letter dated 23.03.2011, would be rendered
irrelevant and would not bind the petitioner.
10. Yet another aspect to buttress the submission that the resignation was
voluntary, learned senior counsel stated that the cheque to the tune of
Rs.1,95,726/- which was issued to respondent no.2 on 26.08.2010 as full
and final settlement of his dues, was in fact encashed by respondent no.2.
Learned senior counsel would contend that if the bogey of respondent no.2
having been coerced or forced into tendering his resignation were to be
believed, there was no reason why respondent no.2 would encash the said
cheque at all. He would contend that ignoring such relevant facts pertaining
to the conduct of respondent no.2, both the letter of the DoE dated
23.03.2011 as well as the impugned order of the learned DST dated
29.07.2015, cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 9 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
11. Learned senior counsel also contended that respondent no.2 had
never sent any letter seeking withdrawal of his resignation or even a
complaint that such resignation was forced upon him, to either the
petitioner school or the DoE. In order to substantiate the said contention, he
submitted that from the time respondent no.2 resigned on 04.08.2010 and
till the DoE wrote to respondent no.2 on 10.01.2011, no letter of
withdrawal of resignation or any complaint was initiated or sent by
respondent no.2 to the DoE. He thus contended that in such background
facts, the letter dated 23.03.2011 of the DoE is, apart from being a cryptic
order, also has no substantial basis on which such impugned order could
have been passed.
12. Another legal argument raised by the learned senior counsel is in
respect of the manner in which the learned DST has misdirected itself on
the position of law arising in the facts of the case. He would contend that
the learned DST was bound by sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act to
adjudicate cases wherein the employee has been terminated, while the
defence of the petitioner before the learned DST was that respondent no.2
had tendered resignation. He would stoutly contend that a resignation
tendered and accepted under Rule 114A of the Rules is conceptually and
fundamentally different from a termination contemplated under Section
8(3) of the Act. It is the admitted case of both the parties that no letter of
termination removing the respondent no.2 from services was ever issued by
the petitioner. Having regard thereto, in his contention, the learned DST
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate an issue related to resignation letter in
exercise of powers under Section 8(3) of the Act. He further contended that
the learned DST yet again misdirected itself in law by connecting the issue
of suspension of the petitioner with the resignation tendered by respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 10 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
no.2. He argued that the issue of suspension has no rationale or nexus with
the issue of resignation which is by itself voluntary in nature. Thus, the
impugned order dated 29.07.2015 of the learned DST is non est in law.
13. Learned senior counsel also contended that the conduct of
respondent no.2 in not submitting any letter withdrawing the resignation; in
not sending any complaint to either the petitioner or the DoE regarding the
alleged coercion in extracting the resignation letter from him; and,
approaching this Court by filing W.P.(C) 4661/2012, after a delay of two
years without any plausible reasons, indicates that the respondent no.2 had
voluntarily tendered his resignation in order to avoid the penal
consequences which may arise from FIR No.190/2010 and also to avoid
disciplinary action which may have been initiated by the petitioner on
account of cheating and embezzlement of funds by respondent no.2 while
serving as Superintendent with the petitioner. Predicated on the aforesaid
arguments and facts, learned senior counsel would submit that both, the
letter of the DoE dated 23.03.2011 and the impugned order of the learned
DST dated 29.07.2015 ought to be quashed and set aside.
14. Learned senior counsel would also contend that so far as the
petitioner is concerned, it is a minority unaided institution recognized by
the DoE and enlisted in the list of minority institutions maintained by the
DoE. He would contend that it is settled law that in respect of management
of affairs, the DoE cannot interfere with the decisions taken by the
Managing Committee in regard to its employees. This contention is
notwithstanding the fact that on 20.08.2010, the Governing Body of the
petitioner, including nominee of the DoE, resolved to accept the resignation
of respondent no.2. Thus, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 11 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2:-
15. Mr. Babu Lal, respondent no.2 appeared in person to argue his case.
16. Respondent no.2 would submit that there was a change in the school
management in the year 2009 and in order to appoint its own persons, the
Managing Committee of the petitioner started harassing and humiliating
respondent no.2 in order to coerce him to tender resignation. He submitted
that the first act of discrimination against him by the new Managing
Committee commenced by demoting him from the post of Office
Superintendent to that of an Accountant on 17.06.2009. This followed by
an office order dated 26.10.2009 in the form of a show cause notice to
respondent no.2. Thereafter, the petitioner suspended respondent no.2 from
the services vide order dated 14.11.2009 without intimation to or seeking
approval from the DoE, which was mandatory under Section 8(2) of the
Act. He would submit that the said illegal action was challenged by
respondent no.2 before this Court by way of a petition bearing W.P.(C)
13566/2009. Vide order dated 03.12.2009, this Court was pleased to stay
the suspension. It is claimed that consequent to the order dated 03.12.2009,
when respondent no.2 sought to join the petitioner, the authorities
prohibited him from doing so, thus, being aggrieved, the respondent no.2
filed a contempt petition no.956/2009. It was only thereafter that the
petitioner permitted respondent no.2 to join duties, however, neither
allotted work to him nor paid the arrears and back wages.
17. Mr. Babu Lal submitted that as retaliation, the Managing Committee
of the petitioner in order to coerce and arm-twist him, registered a false and
a frivolous FIR No.190/2010 on 29.06.2010. Respondent no.2 submitted
that the petitioner school forced him to tender a resignation on 04.08.2010
which was sent to the DoE on 06.08.2010 without the necessary approval
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 12 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
of the Governing Body of the petitioner school as mandated under the Act.
He submitted that vide letter dated 07.08.2010, the DoE directed the
petitioner to supply the Minutes of the Governing Body resolving to accept
the alleged resignation purported to have been tendered by him. He
vehemently asserted that till that date, he had not signed on any resignation
letter nor was it approved or accepted by the Governing Body (Managing
Committee).
18. Since the evil design of the petitioner school was not succeeding, he
was summoned to the school on 26.08.2010. He would contend that on the
said day, some persons of the Managing Committee put him under duress
and under the threat of arrest, and forced him to tender a resignation letter,
purportedly dated 04.08.2010. He vehemently contended that the said
alleged resignation is contrary to the Act and the Rules as also in violation
of the service contract and the scheme of management of the petitioner.
19. He further submitted that in order to substantiate its falsehood
surrounding the alleged resignation letter, the petitioner fraudulently and
dishonestly released the gratuity and leave encashment amounting to
Rs.1,95,726/- vide cheque dated 26.08.2010 and forced him to deposit it on
the same day in his bank account of the Bank situated in the petitioner
school’s premises. He further submitted that the petitioner forced him to
withdraw a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on 26.08.2010 itself and the said amount
was taken away by one of the employees of the petitioner. He also
submitted that these facts were brought to the notice of this Court by way
of a rejoinder affidavit dated 12.11.2010 in W.P.(C) 13566/2009 which was
filed by him against the suspension letter dated 14.11.2009. He further
stated that it was during the pendency of the said writ petition that this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 13 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
Court was informed by the petitioner that respondent no.2 had tendered a
resignation.
20. He further stated that this Court, on account of the statement given
by the counsel for the petitioner regarding resignation tendered by
respondent no.2, directed the petitioner school, which was the respondent
therein, to file an additional affidavit vide order dated 09.02.2012. He
further stated that this Court vide order dated 29.05.2012 noted that since
he wanted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh petition as
a cause of action had freshly arisen, on account of the alleged resignation
letter, such liberty was granted to file a fresh petition.
21. Respondent no.2 further stated that in the interregnum, the DoE vide
letter dated 10.01.2011 sought clarification from him as to whether he has
any objection to the grant of approval to the acceptance of his resignation
which was communicated by the petitioner school. In response thereto, vide
communication dated 13.01.2011, the respondent no.2 clearly stated that
the resignation was forcefully taken by the petitioner school. It is stated that
in view of the letter dated 13.01.2011 communicated by him, the DoE by
its letter dated 23.03.2011 refused/rejected the request of the petitioner to
grant approval to the resignation tendered by respondent no.2.
22. He submitted that the entire aforesaid factual matrix clearly indicates
that his resignation was not voluntary and was extracted by way of
coercion and threat of getting him arrested on the basis of the false and
frivolous FIR No.190/2010 registered by the petitioner on false, frivolous
and baseless allegations. He contended that his resignation was not
voluntary and he was forced to tender his resignation in the manner as
stated above. He also contended that the DoE, vide its letter dated
23.03.2011, has rightly refused to grant approval to the coerced resignation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 14 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
under Rule 114A of the Rules and the jurisdiction vested upon it, after
considering the fact that the resignation letter purported to have been
tendered by him was not voluntary but forced. He also forcefully contended
that the learned DST, by way of the impugned order dated 29.07.2015, had
appreciated all the surrounding facts and the law on the subject, before
quashing the order of demotion as well as directing his reinstatement. He
argued that the learned DST had rightly adjudicated the appeal of the
respondent no.2, and rightly observed that the suspension order merged in
the resignation, deeming it to be in the nature of termination since it was
observed that, i) the resignation was not voluntary but forced and coerced,
ii) such coerced resignation would tantamount to termination and; iii) that
the resignation had not been accepted in terms of the Act and the Rules.
23. He thus submitted that given the facts as narrated by him, there is no
merit in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed with heavy and
exemplary costs against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent no.2.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/DoE:-
24. Ms. Latika Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the DoE
generally supported the letter dated 23.03.2011 of the DoE as also the
impugned judgment dated 29.07.2015 passed by the learned DST.
25. By inviting attention to the letter dated 06.08.2010 sent by the
petitioner, she submitted that the said letter did not enclose any information
in respect of the decision taken by the Managing Committee regarding the
resignation of respondent no.2. This aspect was conveyed to the petitioner.
She submitted that the petitioner again wrote a letter dated 07.09.2010
submitting the decision of the Managing Committee for the first time.
26. However, the petitioner had yet again failed to enclose the original
resignation letter stated to have been tendered by the respondent no.2 to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 15 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
petitioner. The DoE had to again direct the petitioner to furnish the original
resignation letter. It was in these circumstances when the petitioner did not
respond to the DoE as per the Rules, that the DoE had sought clarification
from respondent no.2 vide letter dated 10.01.2011 as to whether he has any
objection to grant of approval by DoE to his resignation. In response
thereto, the respondent no.2 by the letter dated 13.01.2011 intimated that it
was on account of force and coercion exerted by the petitioner that the
respondent no.2 tendered the said resignation.
27. After having received the said response and having found the
petitioner to be violating the Rules, the letter dated 23.03.2011 was passed
by the DoE refusing the grant of approval to the resignation of respondent
no.2 in terms of Rule 114A of the Rules. Learned counsel also contended
that the alleged acceptance of the resignation letter by the Managing
Committee of the petitioner was not in accordance with Rule 114A of the
Rules and hence, no such approval contemplated under the said Rule could
have been accorded by it to the petitioner.
28. On the basis of the aforesaid, Ms. Chaudhary, learned counsel
submitted that both, the letter dated 23.03.2011 of the DoE as well as
judgment dated 29.07.2011 of the learned DST cannot be assailed by the
petitioner. She thus sought dismissal of the writ petition.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:-
29. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Babu Lal,
the respondent no.2 in person and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1/DoE, examined the judicial records and
records summoned from the DoE and considered the judgments relied upon
by the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 16 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
30. The questions which arise for the consideration of this Court in the
present writ petition are, (i) as to whether, once a resignation tendered by
an employee of a school is accepted by the competent authority i.e., the
Managing Committee (in the present case, the Governing Body), the DoE
has any right, authority or jurisdiction to reject the same at the instance of
the employee; (ii) whether there is any mandate or requirement under Rule
114A of the Rules providing for “prior approval” of the DoE before the
acceptance of resignation by the Managing Committee can be said to be
valid; (iii) whether in a case where an employee has not withdrawn his
resignation before either the acceptance of the same by the Managing
Committee or from the date such resignation would become effective, the
DoE can refuse according approval; and (iv) whether the deemed approval
of the DoE, if not responded within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such
communication by the school as stipulated in Rule 114A, would make the
resignation effective and complete.
31. At the outset, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 114A of the
Rules hereunder:-
“[114A. Resignation– The resignation submitted by an employee of a
recognised private school shall be accepted within a period of thirty days
from the date of the receipt of the resignation by the managing committee
with the approval of the Director:
Provided that if no approval is received within 30 days, then such
approval would be deemed to have been received after the expire of the
said period.]”
32. The interpretation of Rule 114A of the Rules in respect of the
deeming fiction contemplated therein is no more res integra in view of the
judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Nand Kishor vs.
Managing Committee of Rani Datta Arya Vidyalaya & Ors., LPA
115/2025, decision dated 28.02.2025. In that case, the School had claimed
that the employee had tendered his resignation which was accepted by its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 17 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
Managing Committee which had further communicated the said resignation
letter to the DoE for approval in terms of Rule 114A of the Rules. In the
interregnum, the employee had claimed that the said resignation was forced
and that he has withdrawn the said resignation. Consequently, the DoE
refused to grant approval to such resignation. It was this refusal that was
challenged by the School by way of writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) 20218-
19/2004. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the School
and held that the deeming fiction in Rule 114A of the Rules would enure to
the benefit of the School as no communication was received from the DoE
within the mandated thirty (30) days period. The employee challenged the
judgement of the learned Single Judge by way of an appeal bearing LPA
115/2025. The learned Division Bench, by the judgement dated
28.02.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the employee. The questions
framed, thus are more or less covered by the said judgement except in the
present case, respondent no.2 never withdrew the resignation. However, it
is imperative to appreciate the observations and the interpretation of law in
the aforementioned judgement.
33. The relevant paras of Nand Kishor (supra) are reproduced
hereunder:-
“13. Perusal of aforesaid documents, amply proves that an unconditional
letter of resignation was tendered by the appellant on 15.03.2003, which
was duly accepted by the Managing Committee of the School on
29.03.2003. After acceptance, a communication was duly forwarded to
the Director of Education informing about the resignation tendered by
the appellant and seeking permission to fill the vacancy w.e.f.
01.07.2003. It is pertinent to observe that at no point of time after
tendering of resignation till its acceptance by the Managing Committee
on 29.03.2003 and till forwarding of letter dated 08.05.2003 to Deputy
Director of Education, appellant raised any grievance that resignation
was given under pressure. Since no communication was forwarded by the
Director of Education within 30 days of letter dated 08.05.2003, the
resignation is deemed to have been approved under Rule 114A of the
DSE Rules. It is only on 07.07.2003 that the appellant for the first time
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 18 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
claimed to have written a letter to the respondent school stating that
resignation had not been willingly given. A comprehensive reading of the
correspondence clearly reflects that resignation tendered by the
appellant as accepted by the Managing Committee was duly intimated to
the Director of Education seeking approval of the competent authority
with a request for filling the post falling vacant on resignation by the
appellant.
Apparently, the stand taken on behalf of the appellant that
resignation was not voluntary, is an afterthought. The resignation could
not have been withdrawn after the same was accepted by the Managing
Committee of the school on 29.03.2003, followed by expiry of 30 days
from forwarding of letter dated 08.05.2003 by the respondent school to
Director of Education. There does not appear to be any reason to infer
that order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to Rule 114A of
the DSE Rules. Undoubtedly, the legislative intent behind the enactment
of Rule 114A of the DSE Rules is to rule out possibility of undue pressure
or coercion in obtaining resignations thereby requiring approval of the
competent authority but the facts of the instant case reflect that
resignation by the appellant vide letter dated 15.03.2003 was voluntary
and was not withdrawn within the stipulated period, prior to acceptance.
14. Proposition is also squarely covered by Modern School v. Shashi Pal
Sharma & Others (supra). In the aforesaid case, the first respondent
Shashi Pal Sharma was employed as a Sanskrit teacher at the school and
tendered his resignation citing personal and urgent domestic issues on
March 17, 1997. The school, vide letter dated March 19, 1997,
forwarded the resignation to the Director of Education for approval.
However, as no response was received from the Director of Education
within the stipulated period of 30 days, the school proceeded to accept
the resignation on May 13, 1997 and informed the respondent that he
would be relieved on June 17, 1997 after serving the required notice
period. Respondent claimed that he had withdrawn his resignation on
March 18, 1997 and submitted supporting documents, including a copy
of letter allegedly withdrawing the resignation and a telegram dated May
14, 1997, asserting that his resignation had already been revoked. The
Education Officer also raised concerns that the Managing Committee
had not been informed of the withdrawal before approving the
resignation. However, the School contested the claim, on the ground that
no such letter of withdrawal was ever received by the school on March
18, 1997, and that the purported withdrawal letter was fabricated.
A writ petition was thereafter preferred on behalf of the respondent
teacher questioning the acceptance of resignation by the school, which
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, since the original school
records did not reflect any entry in the dispatch register corresponding to
the alleged withdrawal of resignation dated March 18, 1997. The Court
held that the claim of the respondent of withdrawing the resignation was
an afterthought and was not supported by evidence. Dissatisfied, the
respondent filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 19 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
High Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated December 13, 2005,
thereby setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in proceedings taken by the school upheld
the findings of the learned Single Judge, holding that once the
resignation had been validly accepted, the respondent could not
withdraw it unilaterally. The Court emphasized that under Rule 114A, if
no response is received from the Director within 30 days, approval is
deemed to have been granted. It was further noticed that respondent
failed to provide credible evidence that his resignation had been
withdrawn before acceptance.
It was further observed that the terms and conditions of the service
are governed by the statute and the statutory Rules. As acceptance of
resignation of the first respondent was communicated to him within a
period of 30 days, the same would take its effect in terms thereof.
Further, the Director of Education acted in terms of representation by
first respondent that he had withdrawn his resignation on 18.03.1997
which was factually incorrect. Further, the competent authority was
obligated in law to communicate its decision to the school authority
within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the letter of
the first respondent.
15. Reference may also be made to the judgment passed by Division
Bench of this Court in Anirudh Kumar Pandey v. Management of Modern
Public School & Ors. (supra). The appellant therein was employed as
TGT (Music) and was handed over a memo with reference to charge for
outraging the modesty of girl students and misbehaving with lady
teachers on 09.09.2000. However, instead of submitting the explanation,
the appellant submitted his resignation on 12.09.2000 resigning from
service with immediate effect. The resignation was accepted by the
Managing Committee of respondent school on the same date and the
same was sent for approval of Director of Education on 15.09.2000, who
accorded the approval on 15.11.2000. The appellant was dismissed by
the school w.e.f. 12.09.2000. Appellant challenged the termination of
service, before the Delhi School Tribunal, which noticed that the issue
relates to date of acceptance of resignation i.e. whether it was accepted
on 12.09.2000 or 15.11.2000 and whether the appellant was forced to
resign on 12.09.2000. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellant
had withdrawn his resignation before the same was approved by DoE in
terms of Rule 114A of the DSE Rules and accordingly directed to
reinstate the appellant. In the writ petition preferred by the respondent
school, the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment passed by the
Tribunal and held that in view of Rule 114A, the resignation dated
12.09.2000 became final on being accepted by the Managing Committee
on 12.09.2000 itself and thereafter, could not have been withdrawn vide
letter dated 17.09.2000. Further, there could not have been any reason
for denial of approval of resignation by the Director of Education, which
would relate back to 12.09.2000, when the resignation was accepted by
the Managing Committee of the school.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 20 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
In an intra-court appeal preferred on behalf of appellant teacher,
it was held that once a letter of resignation is accepted it cannot be
withdrawn. Further, in terms of Rule 114A, 30 days is the outer limit to
the Managing Committee to accept such resignation and the same does
not mean that the Managing Committee has to defer its decision for 30
days till the approval of the Director is received. The Rule does not
require that the resignation has to be accepted ‘with the prior approval’
but simply states that the approval of the Director has to be sought. The
approval therefore has to be post-acceptance of resignation letter and
the act of Managing Committee holds good till the DoE disapproves the
action. It was further observed that the said interpretation of the Rule is
ratified by the deeming provision contained in the proviso to the said
Rule, which states that if no communication is received from DoE within
30 days, the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. Relying
upon North Zone Cultural Centre and Another v. Vedpathi Dinesh
Kumar, (2003) 5 SCC 455, it was further observed that the resignation of
an employee becomes effective on acceptance even if the acceptance is
not communicated to him. The Division Bench accordingly upheld the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. In the light of the discussion in preceding paragraphs and settled
position of law, we are of the considered opinion that the resignation
tendered on 15.03.2003 could not have been withdrawn after the same
was accepted by the Managing Committee on 29.03.2003. Nothing has
been brought on record to presume that the appellant was pressurized
and coerced to submit his resignation prior to acceptance of the same by
the Managing Committee of the school on 29.03.2003. The approval of
the Director of Education is deemed, since no communication was
received within 30 days of communication dated 08.05.2003 by the
management of the school. Even otherwise there does not appear to be
any valid ground to substantiate the findings of the Director of Education
to refuse the grant of approval to the resignation submitted by the
appellant. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge setting aside the order of Director of Education does not
call for any interference.
In the facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the resignation
tendered vide letter dated 15.03.2003 did not have a binding effect and
could be withdrawn vide letter dated 07.07.2003.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.”
[Emphasis supplied]
34. It would be relevant to also consider the judgement in the case of
Urmil Sharma vs. Director of Education: 1996 III AD (Delhi) 48 wherein
the learned Division Bench of this Court held that in the context of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 21 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
acceptance of a resignation tendered by any employee under Rule 114A of
the Rules, the Managing Committee of that School is the Competent
Authority. Since the same has a bearing on the observations and analysis of
this Court, the relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced hereunder:-
“8. It is not in dispute that in the matter of acceptance of resignation
compliance of Rule 114 A of the Delhi School Education Rules is
necessary. Rule 114A reads:
“114-A Resignation
The resignation submitted by an employee of a recognised
private school shall be accepted within a period of thirty days
from the date of the receipt of the resignation by the
managing committee with the approval of the Director.
Provided that if no approval is received within 30 days, then
such approval would be deemed to have been received after
the expiry of the said period.”
9. A bare reading of the Rule would show that there are two conditions
precedent in order to make the resignation effective, namely, it must be
accepted within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the
resignation by the Managing Committee and such acceptance should be
with the approval of the Director of Education. The approval, if not
received within thirty days, the Director will be deemed to have accorded
the approval after the expiry of thirty days.
10. We are not inclined to accept the respondents’ version that the
acceptance of the resignation by the Manager on 22.10.1994 is a valid
acceptance or that it is acceptance by the appointing authority.
Respondents’ stand that the Manager of the School, in the case of the
petitioner, is the appointing authority is wholly fallacious. The contract
of service, copy of which we directed respondent No. 2 to be placed on
record, on the face of it reflects that the same was entered into, as per the
requirements of the relevant provisions of the Delhi School Education
Act and the Rules between the petitioner and the Managing Committee of
the School. The same on behalf of the Managing Committee of the School
has been signed by the Manager. The mere fact that the Manager has
signed the contract of service “for and on behalf of the Managing
Committee” will not make the Manager of the School as the Appointing
Authority. Appointing Authority will remain the Managing Committee
and it is Managing Committee, who alone is competent to accept the
resignation, which is also one of the essential requirements of Rule 114-
A of the Rules. There has been no acceptance of the resignation, as is
frankly admitted on behalf of respondent No.2, by the Managing
Committee, prior to receipt of letter of withdrawal dated 11.11.1994.
Neither before the Staff Matters Sub Committee, which passed the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 22 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
resolution on 28.11.1994, nor to the Director of Education, the
petitioner’s request for withdrawal dated 11.11.1994 was forwarded. In
case resignation had not been accepted by the Managing Committee
prior to 11.11.1994, acceptance by the Manager on 22.10.1994 will be
ineffective and all actions taken on the basis of this acceptance would be
redundant, in view of withdrawal of the resignation by the petitioner on
11.11.1994. The resignation would become effective only on its
acceptance by the Competent Authority and not before that and it is a
well settled proposition in law that resignation, before it becomes
effective, can be withdrawn and in the instant case the same admittedly
had been duly withdrawn by the petitioner on 11.11.1994. The act of
respondent No.2, as such, in relieving the petitioner or in treating the
petitioner relieved from service on 21.1.1995 is also bad in law since the
petitioner could not have been relieved on the basis of void orders.”
[Emphasis supplied]
35. Thus, viewed from the prism of what the learned Division Bench has
held in Nand Kishor (supra), after due consideration of various judgements
and the ratio laid in the case of Urmil Sharma (supra), it is clear that, (i)
the Competent Authority to accept the resignation tendered by an employee
is the Managing Committee of the School; (ii) the employee may withdraw
his/her resignation anytime before the acceptance of the resignation by the
Managing Committee of the School; (iii) in case no withdrawal is received
by the School before acceptance, such acceptance alongwith the Minutes of
such resolution/decision and copy of the resignation letter should be
communicated by the School to the DoE under Rule 114A of the Rules;
(iv) the DoE is to accord approval within thirty (30) days of receipt of such
communication; (v) in case the DoE does not respond to the
communication received from the School within thirty (30) days of the
receipt of such communication, the approval shall be deemed to have been
accorded without any further reference to the DoE and; (vi) that Rule 114A
of the Rules does not envisage any “prior approval” of DoE as a sine qua
non to make such acceptance valid.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 23 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
36. Having distilled the aforesaid, the same needs to be applied to the
facts of the present case.
37. The respondent no.2 is alleged to have committed acts of cheating
and siphoning of funds while working as the Office Superintendent of the
petitioner in the year 2009, which was revealed from the Audited Accounts
of the School by way of an Audit Report dated 27.08.2009. A show cause
notice dated 26.10.2009 was issued to the respondent no.2. Further action
was taken on 17.06.2009 by demoting respondent no.2 to the post of
Accountant. An F.I.R. No.190/2010 was registered on 29.06.2010 under
Sections 420/468/471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
P.S. Punjabi Bagh by the petitioner against respondent no.2, which is
claimed to be still pending. Respondent no.2 is stated to have tendered his
resignation on 04.08.2010. The Governing Body/Managing Committee of
the petitioner accepted the resignation tendered by respondent no.2 in its
meeting held on 20.08.2010 which also had a DE-nominee. It was also
desired that respondent no.2 be called in person again to affirm his
resignation before a Sub-Committee formed by the Governing Body of the
petitioner on 26.08.2010. Respondent no.2 is stated to have appeared and
reiterated the resignation tendered and requested release of all his dues at
the earliest. As requested, a sum of Rs.1,95,726/- by way of a cheque was
released to respondent no.2 on the same date and encashed too by
respondent no.2.
38. The petitioner claims to have communicated the said acceptance of
the resignation of respondent no.2 to the DoE by its letter dated
07.09.2010. Though the letter was received, the DoE sought the copy of the
original resignation letter. By the letter dated 23.09.2010, the petitioner
tendered a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 24 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
dated 20.08.2010 as well as of the Sub-Committee dated 26.08.2010
alongwith the resignation letter of respondent no.2 to DoE, which
acknowledged the receipt thereof by an endorsement on the said
communication on 24.09.2010. The DoE yet again corresponded with the
petitioner seeking copies of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Managing
Committee accepting the resignation and the resignation letter. Though the
said direction was already complied with, yet the petitioner sent another
communication on 20.01.2011 enclosing therewith a copy of the Minutes
of the Meeting dated 20.08.2010 and 26.08.2010 as well as the resignation
letter of respondent no.2. This too was received by the DoE on 21.01.2011
which is clear from the endorsement at the bottom of such communication.
39. Thus, it is clear that the copy of Minutes of the Meeting of the
Managing Committee of the petitioner alongwith the resignation letter of
respondent no.2 were received by the DoE on 24.09.2010 and 20.01.2011,
assuming it was not furnished under the cover of the letter dated
07.09.2010. At this stage, it is significant to consider that the DoE failed to
issue any response within thirty (30) days as stipulated in Rule 114A of the
Rules either to the letter dated 23.09.2010 or even 20.01.2011. It is
pertinent to also bear in mind that even respondent no.2 did not tender any
letter to the petitioner seeking withdrawal of his resignation, before the
resignation was accepted on 20.08.2010 by the Managing Committee and
reiterated by him on 26.08.2010 before the Sub-Committee. Infact,
respondent no.2 had received a sum of Rs.1,95,726/- as full and final dues
on account of Gratuity etc. on 26.08.2010. Even thereafter, respondent no.2
did not file a complaint or a representation with the DoE claiming coercion
or force in extracting the resignation letter from him. Rather, this finds
mention for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit filed by respondent no.2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 25 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
in W.P.(C) 13566/2009, on 12.11.2010, which is almost 3 months after he
received all his dues on 26.08.2010.
40. What is interesting is the fact that it is only once the DoE by its letter
dated 10.01.2011 sought information from respondent no.2 as to whether
he has any objection to acceptance of the resignation that for the first time,
respondent no.2 by the letter dated 13.01.2011 intimated DoE that the
resignation was forced/coerced from him by the petitioner school on the
threat of arrest. It is further intriguing as to why the DoE waited till another
two months to communicate its refusal to the acceptance of resignation of
respondent no.2 by the petitioner, vide letter dated 23.03.2011. It is quite
another story that the said letter is bereft of any reasons as to why DoE did
not accord approval, which is not appreciated by this Court.
41. It would be worthwhile to also appreciate that the deeming fiction
envisaged in Rule 114A of the Rules had already become effective much
before the DoE communicated with respondent no.2 and thus, the response
of respondent no.2 by the letter dated 13.01.2011 to the DoE is
insignificant in the facts of the case.
42. Now applying the ratio laid down in Nand Kishor (supra) and Urmil
Sharma (supra) of the learned Division Bench of this Court, the
refusal/rejection by DoE by its letter dated 23.03.2011, to the
communications dated 20.01.2011 or even 23.09.2010 of the petitioner is
irrelevant and inconsequential.
43. Now coming to the impugned judgment of the learned DST, it is
clear that the Tribunal lost sight of the law laid down by the learned
Division Bench of this Court in Nand Kishor (supra). The learned Tribunal
misdirected itself in construing that there was no voluntariness in the
resignation tendered by respondent no.2 as also in recording a finding that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 26 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
the acceptance of resignation on 26.08.2010 by the Sub-Committee
constituted by the Managing Committee is contrary to law on the premise
that under Rule 114A of the Rules, it is the Managing Committee which
alone is competent to accept the resignation.
44. The learned DST simply overlooked the fact that respondent no.2
himself did not withdraw his resignation tendered on 04.08.2010 at any
time before its acceptance by the Managing Committee of the petitioner on
20.08.2010, nor did he lodge any protest either with the school authorities
or even the DoE immediately after 26.08.2010 when he reiterated and
reaffirmed his resignation before the Sub-Committee or anytime
immediately subsequent thereto. In fact, respondent no.2 actually accepted
his full and final dues on 26.08.2010, enchased it on the same day without
any protest or demur. Records indicate that it was only after the DoE by its
letter dated 10.01.2011 sought clarification, that the respondent no.2 by his
letter dated 13.01.2011 stated that the resignation was not voluntary and
was extracted by coercion. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned DST
appears to be contrary to the record.
45. So far as the issue of the Sub-Committee not having any jurisdiction
or authority in law qua Rule 114A of the Rules is concerned, possibly there
cannot be any quarrel with that proposition. However, what the learned
DST simply overlooked was that it was the Managing Committee of the
petitioner comprising a nominee of the DoE as well to complete the proper
quorum, who had accepted the resignation of respondent no.2 on
20.08.2010. For clarification, the Minutes of the Meeting dated 20.08.2010
of the Governing Body is reproduced hereunder:-
“Minutes of the Governing Body Meeting held on 20th August, 2010
xxx xxx xxxSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 27 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
5.) Mr. Layallpuri took up the next point on the agenda regarding the
resignation of Accountant Babu Lal and LDC Princee Kaur. All the
members felt that the resignation be accepted and at the same time they
supported the Chairman when he voiced that it would have been better if
the employees had given hand written resignations, written in his
presence. S.Makkhan Singh felt that a 5-member committee comprising
of the Chairman, Manager, Principal and 2 others viz. S. Makhan Singh
& Major Joginder Singh, should be formed to resolve the matter. This
was unanimously passed by all the members…”
46. It is clear from the perusal of the said Minutes that the Governing
Body had unanimously accepted the resignation tendered by respondent
no.2. However, they further agreed to receive handwritten resignations
from the employees as desired by the Chairman of the Governing Body. It
was in that context and for the satisfaction of the Chairman that a Sub-
Committee comprising 5-Members was constituted. This Sub-Committee
met on 26.08.2010 and the following Minutes were recorded:-
“SUB-COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF
GURU HARKISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW
DELHI, VIDE ITS RESOLUTION NO.5 DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2010.
MINUTES OF THE SUB COMMITTEE, MEETING HELD AT THE
SCHOOL PREMISES AT 13:00 HOURS ON 26TH AUGUST, 2010The following members attended the meeting:
a) S Baldev Singh Ranibagh (Chairman) President
b) Major Joginder Singh Koacher (Retd.) Member
c) S Makhan Singh Member
d) S Kuldeep Singh Lyallpuri (Manager) Member
e) Mrs Reema Kaur Cheema (Principal) Member
Mrs Cheema read out the minutes of the previous sub committee meeting
and the same was unanimously confirmed and passed as correct. She
also explained that holding of the current meeting had to be delayed for
an hour and a half at the request of Sh Babu Lal.
Sh Babu Lal presented himself before the sub committee and he was
shown his letter of resignation. Sh babu Lal confirmed that the said letter
dated 04.08.2010 had been written by him. He had resigned from the post
of Accountant, Guru Harkishan Public School, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
of his own free will and desire without any pressure from any quarter. He
also made an annotation to that effect on his original letter of resignation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 28 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
in the presence of all the sub committee members. Witnessing of his
annotation on his letter of resignation was carried out by all the
members. He was also asked for the reason of his resignation. To which
he indicated that he was stressed out and found it difficult to perform his
duties properly.
Sh Babu Lal requested the sub committee to consider the following with a
positive attitude and oblige:
a) Accept his resignation immediately for his health and peace of mind.
b) To payout Gratuity and Leave Encashment dues today only because
he was in dire need of funds.
In view of the above, the sub committee unanimously decided to accept
Accountant Sh. Babul Lal’s resignation and directed the Principal to
make the requisite payment for his Gratuity and Leave Encashment dues
as soon as possible.
S Kuldeep Singh informed the members that Ms. Princee Kaur had been
asked to present herself before the sub committee today. She was neither
present nor had she bothered to give any information. The sub committee
decided to give her another chance to appear before it at 11:30 AM on
Monday the 30th Aug, 2010.
There being no other point the meeting was adjourned to be held again at
the school premises at 11:30 hrs on 30th August, 2010.
Jathedar Baldev Singh Rani Bagh S Kuldip Singh Layalpuri
(CHAIRMAN) (MANAGER)"
A perusal of the above Minutes reveal that respondent no.2 had not
only reiterated and reaffirmed his resignation letter dated 04.08.2010 but
had also requested for release of his benefits accruable on resignation. This
request was accepted and completed on the same day. Assuming everything
was a fabricated story, there was no reason for respondent no.2 to go along
and collect his dues. Moreover, the threat of arrest was not required to be
extended by the petitioner, as FIR No.190/2010 was already registered
against respondent no.2 under Sections 420/468/471 read with Section 34,
IPC, 1860. Thus, the version of respondent no.2 is unpalatable.
47. Therefore, the acceptance of the resignation of respondent no.2 was
resolved by the Managing Committee of the petitioner on 20.08.2010 and
not the Sub-Committee on 26.08.2010.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 29 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
48. The learned DST did not closely or clearly examine these facts and
issues before recording incorrect findings.
49. So far as the issue of cancellation of the promotion of respondent
no.2 vide office order dated 17.06.2009 is concerned, since that
order/action merged into the resignation tendered by respondent no.2,
acceptance of which by the petitioner is being upheld by this Court, as
observed in the preceding paragraphs, no further orders are called for.
50. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioner school had
also predicated his argument of the letter dated 23.03.2011 of the DoE,
being otherwise ineffective in law for the reason that the petitioner school
is a Minority School enlisted with the DoE as such. He had contended that
once the petitioner is declared as a Minority Institution/School, the
requirement or the mandate of seeking approval even under Rule 114A of
the Rules would not apply to the petitioner. Thus, on that score too, he
submitted that whether approval is granted or not by the DoE, would not be
an impediment to the acceptance of a resignation tendered by any employee
of a Minority School.
51. Though in the pleadings, the said statement has been mentioned as a
fact however, no document in support thereof has been filed for this Court
to peruse and consider. Moreover, since this Court has made its analysis
and observations on other relevant aspects and considerations, no separate
findings or observations are recorded in the context of the said argument.
However, this Court deems it appropriate to leave the said issue open to be
decided in a more appropriate case.
52. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid
observations.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 30 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
53. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 29.07.2015 of the learned
Delhi School Tribunal passed in Appeal No.31/2013, captioned Sh. Babu
Lal vs. Guru Harikrishan Public School & Anr., is quashed and set aside.
54. Present writ petition is disposed of on above terms, alongwith
pending applications. No order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Aj/kct
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ W.P.(C) 9568/2015 Page 31 of 31
Signing Date:23.02.2026
15:42:38
