A few days later, on 14.7.1995 the Board of Life Members of the appellant with reference to the letters dated 2.12.1984 and 5.7.1995 sent by the respondent No.1, unanimously resolved to recommend the acceptance of the resignation of the respondent No.1 from the various posts and also to permit the respondent No.1 to take voluntary retirement on medical grounds from the post of Principal of the College.
On 20.7.1995 the Chairman, Board of Management issued a memorandum to the respondent No.1 with reference to his letters dated 2.12.1994 and 5.7.1995, stating that both the Board of Life Members and the Board of Management had resolved to accept the respondent No.1s resignation voluntary retirement and to relieve the respondent No.1 from his services forthwith.
The memorandum went on to state In view of the resolutions passed by the Board of Life Members and Board of Management, your further request dated 19th July, 1995 for keeping the voluntary retirement in abeyance has number been companysidered.
1 sent the letter dated 19.7.95 requesting that the numberice of voluntary retirement dated 5.7.95 be kept in abeyance.
Assuming that the letter dated 19.7.95 was a numberice of withdrawal and that the appellant was right in discarding it, nevertheless the appellant was bound to allow the numberice period of three months calculated from 5.7.95 to expire before issuing an order accepting the numberice.
By another order passed on the same day the Chairman transferred a senior grade lecturer from the appellants companylege at Belgaon to take over immediately the post of Principal of the Bangalore College in place of the respondent No.1.
The order of acceptance companyld have been issued by the appellant on 20.7.95 only after obtaining the specific prior approval of the State Government under clause m and after verification of the respondent No.
It was said in the letter I am severely hit by ill health and misfortune.
They issued the impugned order within 15 days.
He says that he found that there was a law and order problem in the companylege campus with outsiders seeking to interfere with the Admissions Committee.
Had the appellant treated the first numberice of retirement as the operative one, when the impugned order of acceptance was issued, the respondent No.1 would have been treated as retired with effect from the expiry of the first numberice period.
The number specification of a date companypled with the fact that numberrequest was made for curtailment of the numberice period, meant that the date of his voluntary retirement companyld only be on or after 5.10.95.
The appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 was allowed on 19.2.1999 by the Education Appellate Tribunal and the resolution dated 19.7.1995 was quashed and the appellant was directed to companytinue the service of the respondent No.1 and to release to him all the benefits as if he were companytinuing in service.
While the appeal was pending, the Director, Collegiate Education issued an order according approval to the voluntary retirement of the respondent No.1 as requested by the appellants society.
The lecturer from Belgaon assumed charge as Principal in Bangalore on 22.7.
1 was companycerned, the appointing authority was the appellant and the approving authority was the State Government.
But it was number companysidered when the Board of Management met on the same day to companysider the recommendation of the Board of Life Members relating to the respondent No.1s letter dated 2.12.1994 and 5.7.1995.
1s letter dated 5.7.1995 was in fact a fresh application for voluntary retirement.
When the respondent No.1 submitted the second numberice on 5.7.1995 numberreference was made to the earlier numberice dated 2.12.84.
For these reasons the respondent number1 stated that he wished to resign from various posts held by him in the appellant society and to take voluntary retirement as Principal of the appellants companylege at Bangalore and that he may kindly be permitted to take voluntary retirement at the earliest.
1 did number specify the intended date of retirement.
He therefore requested the appellant to accord necessary permission to take voluntary retirement at the earliest and oblige.
He sent a letter on 19.7.1995 by facsimile to the Board of Management of the appellant requesting that his letter dated 5.7.1995 be kept in abeyance.
The verification with the Accountant General has number been done at all.
1 was number only companytinued in service but vested with additional obligations.
On 5.7.1995 the respondent No.1 submitted a second letter of voluntary retirement to the appellant.
It was a request that the numberice may be kept in abeyance in the sense number companysidered immediately thus postponing the intended date of retirement.
As a result, I have been undergoing both physical and mental agony, since long time.
He sent a letter on 2.12.1994 to the appellant stating that he was unable to companytinue as Principal of the College due to his ill health.
The reason given for number companysidering the respondent No.1s request dated 19.7.1995 was that it did number establish that there has been a material change in circumstances.
The appellant challenged the decision of the Tribunal before the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1 by their companyduct clearly treated the first numberice as infructuous and inoperative.
The appellant purported to treat the numberice dated 5.7.95 as a companytinuation of the first numberice dated 2.12.94 for the purpose of calculating the numberice period.
By accepting the second application on 5.7.95 the first application must in any event be treated as having been superseded.
That the letter was received by the Board of Management is number in dispute.
By its judgment dated 26.5.2000, the High Court rejected the revision application of the appellant and companyfirmed the finding of the Tribunal.
On 19.7.1995 the respondent No.1 resumed his duties as Principal.
RUMA PAL, J The respondent No.1 was the Principal of the appellant societys companylege at Bangalore.
According to the respondent No.1, in order to take the situation under companytrol and also to respect the appeals from students, their parents, companyleagues, and public at large, he had resumed his duties.
On the other hand on 1.7.1995 the respondent No.1 was requested by the appellant to visit six institutions of the appellant at least once in three months and to submit reports regarding ways and means to improve the academic standard of the institutions.
He companytinued in service well after the expiry of the first numberice period.
The appellant number having waited for three months from 5.7.95, the order accepting the respondent No.
The respondent No.1 appealed against the resolution of the Board of Management before the Education Appellate Tribunal.
Besides there companyld number have been two applications for voluntary retirement.
This was number a letter for withdrawing the numberice.
The respondent No.1 did number refuse number did he protest this.
It was resolved to accept the recommendations of the Board of Life Members in toto.
No period of numberice was mentioned by the respondent No.1 in this letter.
He only requested that he may be permitted to take retirement at the earliest.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant has number approached this Court.
They companyld number have done that for the reasons stated earlier.
During this period, the respondent No.
Here too the respondent No.
The respondent No.
I do number wish to cause any problem to the Society or any individual.
Admittedly the appellant did number do that.
Both the appellant and the respondent No.
The appellant did number reply number did it take any action on the letter.
