Supreme Court Holds Acceptance of Resignation Is Effective Even Without Communication to Employee

In Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 269 SC), the Supreme Court held that under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), a resignation becomes effective upon its acceptance by the competent authority. The Court clarified that communication of such acceptance is not mandatory unless expressly required by the governing statute or rules. 

The appellant was working as an Assistant Teacher in a grant-in-aid school managed by the respondent society. He voluntarily submitted his resignation on 10 October 2017. The management accepted the resignation through its Management Committee, followed by the School Committee. Subsequently, the appellant attempted to withdraw his resignation before receiving formal communication of its acceptance. He was not permitted to resume duty and challenged his termination before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal held in favour of the appellant, concluding that the management had fabricated the resolution accepting the resignation and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. However, the Bombay High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court considered:

•Whether the resolution accepting the appellant's resignation was a fabricated document. 

•Whether there was any violation of the MEPS Act and Rules in accepting the resignation. 

•Whether failure to communicate acceptance of the resignation rendered the termination invalid. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and observed that: •The allegation that the management had fabricated the resolution accepting the resignation was unsupported by evidence.

•The Management Committee had accepted the resignation before the School Committee, and the records sufficiently established compliance with the statutory procedure. 

•Section 7 of the MEPS Act primarily protects employees while submitting resignations, whereas Rule 40 safeguards the interests of the management by ensuring adequate notice before an employee leaves service. 

•Neither the MEPS Act nor the Rules require that acceptance of a resignation must be communicated to the employee before it becomes effective. 

•An employee cannot withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority merely because the communication of acceptance has not yet been received. 

•The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar that resignation becomes effective upon acceptance where the applicable rules do not mandate communication. The Court also noted that the appellant had voluntarily resigned due to personal difficulties and only sought to withdraw the resignation after realising his mistake.

The Supreme Court:

•Dismissed the appeal. 

•Upheld the Bombay High Court's judgment. 

•Confirmed that the appellant's resignation had been validly accepted. 

•Held that the subsequent withdrawal of resignation was ineffective as the resignation had already taken effect upon acceptance. 

The judgment clarifies that, unless the governing service rules specifically require communication, acceptance of a resignation takes effect from the date it is accepted by the competent authority. It also distinguishes the protective purpose of Section 7 of the MEPS Act from Rule 40, emphasising that employees cannot revoke a resignation after its valid acceptance merely because they were not formally informed of that acceptance.