Mere non-communication of acceptance of resignation to the employee would not render termination invalid – Supreme Court

Shriram Manohar Bande Vs. Uktranti Mandal and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 337) – (Supreme Court) (25 Apr 2024)  – Acceptance of Resignation

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 25) held that the employment is deemed to be terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority. 

In the facts of present case, Respondent No. 1- M/S Uktranti Mandal is an educational society. The Appellant Mr. Shriram Manohar Bande came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher and was discharging his duties accordingly. Mr. Shriram tendered his resignation from the said post on 10th October, 2017. However, vide letter dated 25th October, 2017, he withdrew his resignation. Appellant received a letter stating that he was relieved from his service. Against his termination, the Appellant approached the Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and Rules framed thereunder (MEPS Act and Rules). The Tribunal concluded that, the Appellant had indeed withdrawn his resignation lawfully and the Respondents with a mala fide intent had fabricated the documents

Being aggrieved, the Respondents approached the High Court. The High Court concluded that, there was material on record to show that the resignation tendered by the Appellant was indeed accepted as per the resolution passed

Supreme Court observed 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 10th October, 2017 and this resignation letter came be accepted on 14th October, 2017, hence the date of termination of the services of the Appellant for the purpose of adjudication would be 14th October, 2017. Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules does not impose any guidelines for acceptance of the resignation upon the management. Therefore, the contention raised by the Appellant Mr. Shriram Manohar Bande about withdrawal of resignation before communication of its acceptance does not hold water. There is no infirmity with the impugned judgment and it does not merit any interference. Appeal was dismissed.

Judgment by Supreme Court: “We find no infirmity with the impugned judgment and it does not merit any interference. In light of both the points formulated having been answered in the negative, we affirm the findings of the High Court and consequently dismiss the present appeal with no order as to costs.