SURENDRA DATTU MANEversusTHE PRINCIPAL - M.H.SHINDE COLLEGE AND ORS.

                                                 47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO.3715 OF 2007
Surendra Dattu Mane,
Age: 38 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Satale Mala, Bahinai Niwas,
Near Ayodhya Theatre,
Yashwantnagar, Sangli.                         …..Petitioner
            Vs.
1.    The Principal,
      M. H. Shinde College,
      Tisangi, Tal.-Gaganbavada,
      District-Kolhapur.

2.      The President,
        Dnyansadhana Shikshan
        Prasarak Mabldal, Niwade,
        Tal.-Gaganbavada, District-Kolhapur.

3.      The Director Board of College
        & University Development,
        Shivaji University, Kolhapur – 416 004.…..Respondents

                                 WITH
                   WRIT PETITION NO.3717 OF 2007
Chougule Sunita Dhondiram,
Age: 33 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Satale Mala, Bahinai Niwas,
Near Ayodhya Theatre,
Yashwantnagar, Sangli.                         …..Petitioner
            Vs.
1.    The Principal,
      M. H. Shinde College,
      Tisangi, Tal.-Gaganbavada,
      District-Kolhapur.


Gaikwad RD                                                            1/14
                                                  47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

2.       The President,
         Dnyansadhana Shikshan
         Prasarak Mabldal, Niwade,
         Tal.-Gaganbavada, District-Kolhapur.

3.       The Director Board of College
         & University Development,
         Shivaji University, Kolhapur – 416 004.…..Respondents
Ms. Shama Mulla, for the Petitioners.
Mr. M. S. Topkar with Ms. Bhargavi Patil & Mr. Neev Patil, for the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
                               CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
                                DATED : 13th JANUARY 2026
P.C.:-

1.       Both these Petitions are directed against the Judgment and

Order dated 6th October 2006 passed by Presiding Officer, University

and College Tribunal, Pune/Shivaji University (For short, ‘Tribunal’)

in Appeal No.48 of 2002(S). Writ Petition No.3715 of 2007 and Writ

Petition No.3717 of 2007 are filed by the Petitioners, who are the

‘Lecturers’ in Respondent No.1-College. Since both the Petitions are

directed against the same order, they are disposed of by this common

judgment.


2.       Both the Petitioners are husband and wife.         They were

appointed as Lecturers in Marathi & Hindi subjects respectively on

13th January 1997 on a temporary basis for a period of two years till

31st October 1999 at Respondent No.1-M. H. Shinde College, Tisangi,

Gaikwad RD                                                             2/14
                                                           47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

District     Kolhapur,   which    is    managed      by        Respondent   No.2-

Dnyansadhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal following a formal and

regular selection process conducted by the University, the Petitioners

were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis and thereafter from 1st

December 1999 placing their employment under the regular

oversight of the authorities of Shivaji University.


3.      It is the contention of both the Petitioners that at the very

inception of their regularized services from 1 st December 1999, the

Petitioners were subjected to a common, but illegal practice, where

the Management coerced both of them into submitting an undated

resignation letters as a pre-condition for joining. Being in dire need

of employment and belonging to a backward class, the Petitioners

were coerced to this duress. This pattern of exploitation continued

throughout their tenure of 3 years and 5 months, during which the

Respondents       compelled      both    of   them        to     sign   pay-sheets

acknowledging receipt of full salary, whereas in reality, they were

consistently paid a significantly lesser amount, thereby depriving

both of them of their legal financial entitlements.


4.      The Petitioners have filed complaints at Gaganbawda Police


Gaikwad RD                                                                      3/14
                                                   47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

Station on 22nd April 2002 and also to University dated 23 rd April

2002 detailing instances of physical beating and harassment.            In

direct relation to these complaints, the Respondents maliciously

misused the undated resignations letters previously taken under

force, by inserting backdated entry and issued termination

(acceptance letter of resignation) dated 18th May 2002 claiming that

both of them have resigned which resulted in removal of both of

them from service effective from 31 st May 2002. University Enquiry

Committee report is not considered by the Respondents, which hold

Respondent No.1 as guilty of misconduct and recommending the

Petitioners’ reinstatement.


5.      It is the contention of Petitioners that undated resignation

letters were not submitted voluntarily, rather those were extracted by

the Respondents under duress at the time of incident involving

physical harassment.


6.      It is argued by the Respondents that the Petitioners’ period of

probation had not yet commenced, asserting that their engagement

was limited to a temporary tenure and approvals were granted

strictly on an ad hoc basis.


Gaikwad RD                                                              4/14
                                                     47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

7.      It is the contention of the counsel for Respondents that a

resignation letter submitted on 15th April 2002 and the second

resignation letter dated 17th April 2002, both resignation letters are

undisputed and have formed a part of record. The submission of two

consecutive resignation letters clearly indicates a conscious and

deliberate decision on the part of Petitioners. The said resignation

was thereafter accepted by Competent Authority in May 2002, which

resulted in a lawful cessation of employer-employee relationship. No

contemporaneous challenge, protest or retraction of the resignation

was raised by the Petitioners at or around the time of acceptance.


8.      After a considerable lapse of time, the Petitioners raised a

dispute before the Tribunal contending that the resignations were not

voluntary. The Tribunal upon examination of the pleadings and

documents placed before it rejected the claim as recorded in the

impugned Judgment and Order.             The Tribunal found that the

Petitioners had failed to substantiate the allegations that the

resignations were obtained by coercion or under compelling

circumstances.    The      Tribunal   thereafter,   concluded    that    the

resignations having been accepted could not be reopened on the

basis of bald assertion.

Gaikwad RD                                                                5/14
                                                   47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

9.       The Petitioners have challenged the Tribunal’s decision by

relying upon the Judgment of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench,

Shri Brijlal Biyani Vidya Niketan and Anr. vs. Bharti w/o Khanderao

Dabhade and Ors.,1 particularly paragraph No.8, wherein it was the

case of Petitioner that the resignation was involuntary. It is submitted

on behalf of the Petitioners that the Tribunal failed to frame a specific

issue regarding the voluntariness of resignation and that such

omission has vitiated the adjudication. The Petitioners contend that

proper framing of issue was necessary in order to enable adjudication

of the core controversy. The Tribunal ought to have permitted the

parties to lead evidence. According to the Petitioners, rejection of

the claim without recording evidence amounts to denial of

reasonable opportunity and violates the principles of natural justice.


10.      It has been held in abovesaid Judgment that when the

voluntariness of resignation is disputed, the adjudicating authority

must permit evidence to be led and cannot summarily dismiss the

claim. No such issue is framed by the Respondents. Therefore, the

Petitioners had no opportunity to lead evidence.



1    Writ Petition No.32 of 2015.

Gaikwad RD                                                              6/14
                                                 47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

11.     The Respondents, however, submit that the resignation letters

dated 15th April 2002 and 17th April 2002 are admitted and

unequivocal. The acceptance of resignations in May 2002 has not

been disputed. It is well settled that once resignation is admitted,

the burden squarely lies on the employee to establish that the same

was obtained by coercion, fraud or undue influence. In the present

case, the Petitioners have failed to discharge their burden. No

documentary      material,   contemporaneous    correspondence,       or

independent evidence have been produced to support the allegation

of involuntariness.


12.     The Respondents further submit that paragraph No.9 of the

Judgment of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Shri

Brijlal Biyani Vidya Niketan and Anr. (supra), does not advance the

Petitioners’ case. The said paragraph merely records that the Tribunal

was empowered to permit parties to lead evidence or call upon them

to submit declarations. The Tribunal did not prevent the Petitioners

from producing material. Despite having such liberty, the Petitioners

did not submit any declaration, affidavit, or evidence in support of

their plea of coercion. Having failed to avail the opportunity, the



Gaikwad RD                                                            7/14
                                                   47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

Petitioners cannot now contend that the Tribunal denied an

opportunity or acted in violation of natural justice.


13.     It is further submitted that mere non-framing of a formal issue

does not vitiate the proceedings, particularly when the parties were

fully aware of the controversy involved.       The Petitioners neither

sought framing of an issue nor raised any objection before the

Tribunal at the relevant stage. In the absence of demonstrated

prejudice, procedural irregularities, if any, cannot be a ground to set

aside the Tribunal’s decision.


14.     With respect to reliance on the judgment in Ashok Balaji

Biradar (supra), the Respondents submit that the said decision is

clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, there exists prima facie

material indicating that the resignation was not voluntary, thereby

necessitating a full-fledged inquiry. In the present case, there is a

complete absence of such material, and the challenge rests solely on

unsubstantiated allegations raised after the resignation had already

been accepted and acted upon.          Hence, prayed to dismiss the

Petitions.


15.     Heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties.

Gaikwad RD                                                              8/14
                                                   47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

16.     In this petition, the Petitioners are challenging the acceptance

of resignation, which is termed as ‘Otherwise Termination’. As per

Section      59   of   the    Maharashtra   Universities    Act,    1954,

notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the

time being in force any employee (whether a teacher or other

employee) in any university, college or recognized institution (other

than that managed and maintained by the State Government, Central

Government or a local authority), who is dismissed or removed or

whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank

by the university or the management and who is aggrieved, shall

have a right of appeal against any such order to the Tribunal. For the

purpose of adjudication, hearing and disposal of appeals, the

Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in an Appellate

Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It also states that the

Tribunal shall have the power to stay the operation of any order

against which an appeal is made, on such terms and conditions, as

the Tribunal may think fit.

17.     Section 61 of the Maharashtra Universities Act confers power

on the Tribunal, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard,

to decide and set aside the order of the University or the

Gaikwad RD                                                              9/14
                                                   47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

management, partially or wholly, and direct reinstatement of the

employee to the same post or to a lower post or to restore the

employee to the rank which he held before reduction or to grant any

other relief.

18.     The Petitioners, who are husband and wife are appointed by

the Respondents earlier on an ad hoc basis and thereafter, by regular

selection. It is alleged that at that time only the resignations were

obtained by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and those were misused. It

appears that the Petitioners are not denying the handwriting or

signatures on resignation letters. However, it is the case of the

Petitioners that it is obtained by force and coercion. If it is the case

of forced resignation, then the burden is on the Petitioners to prove

said coercion, to plead about the coercion and the incident which

compelled them to give such resignations. The Petitioners have not

adduced      any   evidence    before    the   Tribunal     about      the

misrepresentation and coercion. There are no pleadings. It is well

settled that a person who is pleading misrepresentation or coercion

in obtaining resignation letter, it is required to plead the case and

thereafter prove the same in evidence.

19.     The counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the

Gaikwad RD                                                             10/14
                                                        47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

judgment of this Court in case of Shri Brijlal Biyani Vidya Niketan

and Anr. (supra), particularly paragraph No.8, which reads as under:

        “8.   It would, however, be the discretion of the School
        Tribunal whether the parties are to be permitted to lead
        oral evidence in the interest of justice, keeping in view the
        facts and circumstances of each case. While doing this,
        the School Tribunal may have regard to the nature of
        factual dispute, the burden of proof, the presumptions in
        law, the choice of the party to discharge such burden or
        rebut presumptions in law by leading oral evidence. In
        order to cut short the controversy and concentrate upon
        the material controversy, it shall always be desirable for
        the School Tribunal to frame an appropriate issue or the
        issues of facts so that the party desiring to discharge the
        burden or rebut the presumptions in law, is not deprived
        of such opportunity to lead evidence to prove facts in
        support of its stand. It will not be a hard and fast rule to
        permit the parties in each case to lead oral evidence. The
        School Tribunal may decide cases on the basis of
        pleadings and the documents on record and/or on the
        basis of affidavits if it is possible, depending upon the
        facts and circumstances of such cases.”

20.     The Tribunal has not framed such issue and therefore the

Petitioners who were not represented through lawyer have not got

opportunity to lead any evidence.



Gaikwad RD                                                                  11/14
                                                   47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

21.     The Counsel for Respondents has relied on judgment of

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prahladrai Dalmia Lions

College of Commerce and Economics, Bombay & Ors. v. A. M.

Rangaparaia & Ors.2 in support of his arguments that the Tribunal is

empowered to record the evidence.


22.     It is also observed by this Court in Case of Anant Bhagwan

Kamble vs. The Principal, M. L. Dahanukar College of Commerce &

Ors.3 that Section 60 of the Maharashtra Universities Act provides

that the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in an

Appellate Court under the Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunal is

entitled to re-appreciate the evidence.     Therefore, the Petitioners

have to adduce evidence to prove the allegations about obtaining the

resignations by coercion. In absence of evidence, the Tribunal has

rightly observed that the contention of the Petitioners is not proved.


23.     A careful perusal of prayers in appeals would reveal that there

is no prayer to the effect that the resignations tendered by the

Petitioners should be declared as null and void. In absence of any

prayer to that effect before the Tribunal, it is not open for the

2   1988 Mh.L.J. 530.
3   2007(1) ALL MR 338

Gaikwad RD                                                             12/14
                                                    47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

Petitioners to contend that the resignations were forceful or under

the pressure of Respondents.       Even if it is taken as it, that the

resignation was forceful or under pressure, the Petitioners did not

adduce any evidence to that effect before the Tribunal.


24.     On perusal of pleadings, the contention of Petitioners is that it

was obtained at the time of their regular appointment and was

misused. Petitioners have not pleaded any particulars about the

place, where the Respondents have obtained forceful resignation and

at what time. The serious allegations are made against Respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and crime is registered against both the Respondents for

said offenses. The Respondents are acquitted and said judgments are

not challenged before the Appellate Court. On the basis of serious

allegations, the crime was registered and it was the only reason that

the Petitioners have mentioned about forceful resignation, which is

not proved. The ground that they were not represented through

Advocate is now not available to the Petitioners, because it was their

choice.


25.     As serious allegations are made and crime registered against

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, I have gone through the Judgment passed


Gaikwad RD                                                              13/14
                                                                             47-wp-3717-3715-2007.doc

                        in said trial. On perusal of said judgment, it appears that the conduct

                        of Petitioners during trial and denial for cross examination in trial

                        which resulted in acquittal of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 proves that

                        the statements made by Petitioners are not reliable.


                        26.     Considering above said aspects, on careful perusal of findings

                        of the Tribunal, it clearly emerges that the Tribunal has taken a

                        plausible view on the basis of material on record.            There is no

                        perversity in findings recorded by the Tribunal in impugned

                        Judgment and Order.


                        27.     No interference is called for. The Writ petitions are dismissed.



                                                            (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)


           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.01.13
           19:47:00
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                                                               14/14