C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings No. 1045/PS-1/1993-11 dated 04.02.2002 issued by the 1st respondent by calling for the records relating thereto and to consequently direct the respondents to treat the gap period as on duty up to the date of superannuation and to pay the salary and pensionary benefits along with interest.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Drawing Officer in an aided post in the 3rd respondent school in the year 1960 and since then he discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. He has also been awarded a Merit Certificate in the field of Drawing by the Government. While so, the petitioner applied for leave for a period of four months from 31.01.1982 to 31.05.1982 and the same was sanctioned by the management by obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, he applied for extension of leave period on loss of pay on personal grounds up to 12.06.1985 and the same was sanctioned. After expiry of the extended leave period, the petitioner is said to have reported to duty to 13.06.1985. However, the 3rd respondent did not receive the joining report, refused to allow the petitioner to join in service and forced him to sign on blank papers. Thereafter, the management of the 3rd respondent school sent a report to the District Educational Officer against the petitioner and stated that the said post was filled up by their favourable candidate. Aggrieved by the said action of the management of the 3rd respondent school, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Educational Officer, but in vain. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 1437 of 1990 seeking a direction to the management to permit him to join duty and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 07.02.1990 leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Regional Joint Director of School Education for the redressal of his grievance if any. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, and the same was rejected by order dated 28.05.1993 without assigning any reasons. Questioning the same, the petitioner further preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent i.e., Secretary, Education Department. Since no orders have been passed in the revision, the petitioner again preferred another writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 2242 of 2001, which was disposed of by order dated 12.02.2001 directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal/revision filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months. When the said order has not been complied with, the petitioner filed C.C. No. 133 of 2002 and during the pendency of the same, impugned Memo dated 04.02.2002 was issued. Questioning the said Memo, the present writ petition has been preferred.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 05.06.1985 and pending approval by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, he resigned the job on 06.06.1985. The resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the 3rd respondent and accordingly final withdrawal of Teachers Provident Fund (TPF) proposal was sent to the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad on 13.08.1985 and the same was permitted and the amount was also drawn on 19.08.1985 and 31.08.1985. As such, the question of rejoining or granting permission for voluntary retirement does not arise once the petitioner resigned his job. It is further stated that the fact that the petitioner applied for final withdrawal of Teacher Provident Fund itself shows that he wilfully resigned the job and therefore, his claim of joining duty is against the rules in force and the question of his claim for voluntary retirement on medical grounds does not arise and supported the reasoning given by the Government in rejecting appeal by the impugned order and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is seen from the record that questioning the order of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, dated 28.05.1993, wherein the petitioner's claim to admit him to duty and to pay leave salary and allowances from January, 1982 onwards has been rejected, the petitioner filed an appeal/revision before the Government raising several grounds, which include that the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad is without any evidence; that the Regional Joint Director did not apply his mind to the actual facts of the case and statutory rules on the voluntary retirement for invalid pension on medical grounds; the Regional Joint Director simply relied upon the statement submitted by the management of the school; the Regional Joint Director should have declared that his signature was obtained on the alleged letter dated 05.06.1996 under coercion and duress and that it is not binding on him, since signing on the letter is not with his free will and consent and it is not voluntary; the Regional Joint Director should have directed the management of the School to refer his case as per statutory rules to the competent medical authority for its opinion and declaration as to whether he has permanently incapacitated for further service and that the management of the school is not the competent authority to retire the petitioner from service and as such the proceedings dated 06.06.1985 are vitiated and not valid. The Government has taken into consideration the remarks offered by the Regional Joint Director stating inter alia that the petitioner is appointed as a Drawing Master in an aided post of the 3rd respondent school and he applied for extraordinary leave with loss of pay for a period of four months from 31.01.1982 to 31.05.1982 and the same were sanctioned to him. Consequently leave was not extended any further, since no valid proof of acknowledgment is produced. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner applied for extension of leave up to 12.06.1985 is totally baseless and not correct. It is also stated that there is no evidence of re-calling the petitioner from leave and initiating any disciplinary action against him for his unauthorized absence by the management of the school. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent sent a report that the petitioner has not reported to duty on 13.06.1985 and in fact the petitioner has secured a job in Gulf Country. Accordingly, the revision/appeal was rejected by the Government.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was allowed to proceed on leave from 31.01.1982 to 31.05.1982. There is no evidence on record to show that the said leave was extended beyond 31.05.1982. However, the petitioner was allowed to resign the job on 06.06.1985. As per the statement given by the Correspondent of the 3rd respondent school, the petitioner after resigning the job has secured a job in Gulf Country and after returning from Gulf Country, he started litigating the matter by stating that the management has taken his signatures on blank papers and made use of the said papers as if resignation has been submitted by him. The record also discloses that the petitioner has withdrawn the TPF amount on 19.08.1985 and while seeking permission to withdraw the TPF amount has stated in his own representation that he has resigned the job. This itself would show that the petitioner after resigning the job and after withdrawal of the TPF amount, has started litigating the matter by stating that the 3rd respondent management has not allowed him to join duty. Further, the petitioner has also made requests on earlier occasions to retire him on medical grounds so as to become eligible for the benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme.

7. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that management has played fraud by forging the signatures as stated by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The allegation of fraud raised by the petitioner is a question of fact and law. Unless the same is substantiated by producing cogent evidence, mere making an allegation in an affidavit does not constitute fraud. Such complicated questions cannot be decided on the mere allegations in the writ petition and the same are required to be established before the competent Court. The petitioner, having stated in appeal grounds and in the affidavit that the management has played fraud by forcing him to sign on blank papers, has not chosen to file any complaint before the competent police to investigate the same. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty and he was forced to resign the job and on the contrary, as the respondents have placed the evidence along with the counter affidavit that the petitioner has submitted a representation stating that he has resigned the job and requested to allow him to withdraw the TPF amount credited to his account, and on overall examination of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that only with an intention to drag the matter on one pretext or the other by raising flimsy grounds, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

8. The appeal filed by the petitioner was elaborately considered by the Regional Joint Director, duly taking into account the enquiry report submitted by the 2nd respondent, who recorded the statement of the management of the 3rd respondent school, and the 1st respondent also examined the entire records as well as the remarks submitted by the Regional Joint Director and the report submitted by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has resigned the job on 06.06.1985. The claim of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on medical grounds does not stand for valid reason as per rules, as he has already resigned the job. Therefore, this Court does not find any valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority while dismissing the claims of the petitioner.

9. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.