2024:HHC:7675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RSA No. 178 of 2023
Decided on: 30.08.2024
____________________________________________________
Asha Sharma ……….. Appellant
Versus
Anglo Sanskrit Model
Senior Secondary School Nela & Ors. ……..Respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the appellant : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Kiran Jeet Kaur Narula, Mr. Y.
Paul & Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal,
Advocates
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
The present appellant was the plaintiff before the
Trial Court. The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and decree dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Learned
District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.09 of
2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2022
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.II, Mandi, District
Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit 6748/2013, whereby, the suit filed by the
present appellant for declaration and mandatory injunction has
been dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties perused
the impugned judgments.
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. The present appellant had filed a suit before the Trial
Court seeking therein a declaration that the alleged resignation
dated 31.07.2010 be declared non est and the present appellant
be reinstated to her original post from the date of her unlawful dis-
engagement with all consequential service benefits.
4. Issues in the case were framed on 27.09.2016 and
an additional issue was framed on 23.08.2022. The present
appellant appeared as a witness in the case. No other witness
appeared on behalf of the present appellant before the Trial
Court. Insofar as the defendants are concerned, only one defence
witness i.e. defendant No.2 had appeared.
5. The moot point which came up for consideration
before the Courts below was with respect to the alleged forced
resignation of the present appellant at the hands of respondents
No.1 and 2. In this respect, mala fides were alleged against two
teachers i.e. Manish and Vanita. As per the present appellant, it is
the aforesaid two individuals who had fraudulently obtained the
signatures of the appellant on the alleged resignation dated
31.07.2010.
6. In this respect, the First Appellate Court has correctly
held that since mala fides were being alleged against Manish and
Vanita, therefore, they were mandatorily required to be impleaded
as necessary parties and in their absence, the Court cannot
adjudicate on a plea of mala fides. Other than the aforesaid, it
has been correctly held that fraud whether alleged in a criminal or
civil proceedings must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
After appreciating the evidence on record, both the Courts below
have correctly held that the allegation of fraud in the case at hand
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the present
appellant.
7. Rather to the contrary, the explanation offered by the
present respondents that the appellant had initially abandoned
her job and thereafter resigned on 31.07.2010 stands
substantiated from the material on record. The attendance
register (Ex. PA) shows that the appellant was on casual leave
w.e.f. 29th April till 7th May. Thereafter, the appellant is shown to
be absent without leave from 15th May onwards. The attendance
of the appellant is not marked in the month of June or July. The
school had closed for summer vacation w.e.f. 12.07.2010 till
20.08.2010. Subsequent to the reopening, the name of the
appellant is not mentioned in the attendance register.
8. On the reopening of the school, nothing has been
placed on record to show that the appellant had submitted joining
reports duly endorsed by the school and despite the same, the
appellant had not been permitted to join duties. No complaint has
been filed on record by the appellant pointing therein that on
account of non-permitting of joining of the appellant, the appellant
had complained to a higher authority.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the
judgments of the Courts below. Other than the aforesaid, there
arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law
in the present appeal. The present appeal is dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
August 30, 2024
(Ankit)