K.L.E. SOCIETY versus DR. R.R. PATIL AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 26-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.L.E. SOCIETY 
v. 
DR. R.R. PATIL AND ANR. 
APRIL 26, 2002 
B [S. RAJENDRA BABU, RUMA PAL AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Triple Benefit Scheme Rules Karnataka-Rule 50(5)(c) and (m)-
C Voluntary retirement-Acceptance of before expiry of notice period and without 
prior approval of Approving Authority-Held, acceptance was not sustainable 
as the same was pre-mature and amounted to curtailment of notice period 
Karnataka Education Act, I 983-Section 94-Acceptance of voluntary 
D retirement-Non-consideration of subsequent application for keeping in 
abeyance the voluntary retirement-Appeal before Tribunal-Maintainability 
of-Held, maintainable, since acceptance of voluntary retirement amounted to 
removal. 
.-• 
Respondent No. 1. Principal of Appellant Society's College applied on 
E 2.12.1994 seeking permission for voluntary retirement, without mentioning 
the intended date of retirement. The application was not considered and even 
after expiry of notice period i.e. three months as per Rule 50(5)(h) of Triple 
Benefit Scheme Rules, respondent No. 1 continued in service. Subsequently 
when he was vested with additional obligations, he again applied for voluntary 
retirement on 5.7.1995 without mentioning the intended date of retirement 
F and there was no reference made to the earlier notice. On 19.7.1995 he 
requested the Board to keep the notice of voluntary retirement dated 5.7.1995 
in abeyance. Thereafter the Board of Directors of Life members recommended 
acceptance of his resignation. 
Board of Management resolved to accept the recommendation of Board 
G of Director of Life Members without obtaining specific prior approval of the 
State Government i.e. the Approving Authority. Nor did it consider the 
application dated 19.7.1995. Respondent was issued memorandum conveying 
the acceptance of voluntary retirement and non-consideration of letter dated 
19.7.1995 and was relieved from service. 
H 
520 
" 
K.L.E. SOCIETYv. R.R. PATIL 
521 
Another person assumed charge of Principal in place of respondent. 
A 
Respondent filed appeal against the resolution of Board of Management 
before Education Appellate Tribunal which was allowed. During pendency 
of the appeal, voluntary retirement was approved by the State. Revision 
application of the appellant confirming the finding of the appellant, was 
rejected by High Court. 
B 
In appeal t-J this Court the issues for determination were whether the 
appellant's acceptance of the voluntary retirement was valid and whether the 
Education Appellate Tribunal was competent under the provisions of 
Karnataka Education Act, 1983 to entertain the appeal from the order C 
accepting the resignation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellant Society's order accepting the respondent's request 
for voluntary retirement cannot be sustained primarily because the first notice D 
given by the respondent on 2.12.1994 for voluntary retirement could not be 
acted upon. The appellant purported to treat the notice dated 5.7.1995 as a 
continuation of the first notice for the purpose of calculating the notice period 
They could not have done that. The appellant not having waited for three 
months from 5.7.1995, the order accepting the respondent No.l's request for 
voluntary retirement was premature and amounted to unilateral curtailment E 
of the notice period by the appellant contrary to the Scheme and more 
particularly Rule 50(5)(c) thereof. [526-H; 527-H; 528-A] 
1.2. The order of acceptance could not have been issued by the appellant 
before obtaining the "specific prior approval" of the State Government under 
clause (m) and after verification of the respondent No. l's eligibility is F 
consolation with the Accountant General under clause (m). The purported 
approval of the State Government was much after the impugned order of 
acceptance was passed. Neither of these pre-conditions had been fulfilled. 
[528-B, CJ 
2. Impugned order amounted to a removal within the meaning of Section G 
94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Respondent No. l's appeal 
-. 
was, therefore, maintainable before the Tribunal. The element of voluntariness 
attaching to the cesser of the respondent No. l's services when the impugned 
_order was passed was entirely lacking. The result of the impugned order was 
an immediate cessation of the respondent No. l's services as Principal of the H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A appellants' college dehors the Scheme. [5

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.