NAVINCHANDRA FAKIRCHAND CHAMPANERI Vs. DEPUTY DISTRICT DEV OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a junior clerk of Valsad District Panchayat, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is praying for directions to the respondents to follow the directions given by the Panchayat Minister under the order dated 20.9.97, to reinstate the petitioner back in services on the original post as held by the Panchayat Minister that the circumstances pointed out by petitioner are exceptional and just. It has next been prayed that the order dated 8.9.93 under which the resignation of the petitioner was accepted be held to be illegal, ultra vires and bad in law. Prayer has also been made for interim relief.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on 3.6.81 as a junior clerk in the office of District Panchayat, Valsad, at Valsad. On 29.4.91, the petitioner submitted his resignation. It is the case of petitioner that resignation submitted by him was never accepted and the petitioner was not informed regarding the same. Vide letter dated 2 7/04/1992, the petitioner withdrew his resignation pointing out interalia that because of some family circumstances and frequent transfers, he tendered resignation, however, the same was done under mental pressure and that he prays for withdrawal of the same. Vide memo dated 18th December 1992, the petitioner was given a chargesheet regarding unauthorised absence from work and not reporting for duty at the place of his transfer. Departmental inquiry was completed on 17/07/1993. The District Development Officer sent the inquiry report to the petitioner and proposed penalty of reducing him in the rank of lower pay-scale and called upon him to show cause against the proposed penalty. On 29/07/1993, he gave reply to the show cause notice and explained the circumstances under which he remained absent from duties. On 8.9.93, the Deputy District Development Officer imposed penalty of censure on the petitioner. On the same day, certain communication came to be given to the petitioner under which it is stated that resignation submitted by him is accepted with effect from 29/05/1991. Against this order of acceptance of resignation, the petitioner preferred appeal to the District Development Officer in which twofold contentions were raised, namely, that there is no question of resignation from retrospective effect more so when the petitioner has already withdrawn the same. The appeal of the petitioner came to be decided by the District Development Officer on 8.12.93. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.338 of 1993 before this Court challenging the order passed by respondent accepting his resignation. That Special Civil Application came to be decided on 17.11.94 and the matter has been sent for consideration to the respondents for withdrawal of his resignation. The District Development Officer decided this matter on 9.12.94 and held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw his resignation. Then second litigation has been brought by petitioner before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.812 of 1995 which came to be decided on 9.4.96. Again, the matter has been remanded back to the authorities and on 24.1.97, the matter has been decided and it is held that the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional ground justifying his action of withdrawal of resignation. The petitioner this time approached to the Minister of Panchayats by filing application on 2.9.97. The Panchayat Minister on 20th September 1997 directed the Addl. Chief Secretary, Panchayat Department as well as District Development Officer, Valsad, to take the petitioner back in service. Then comes another communication from the Section Officer, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department dated 20.2.98 whereby the State Government has rejected the representation of the petitioner. Hence this Special Civil Application before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case where there were exceptional grounds with the petitioner which justify withdrawal of his resignation. It has next been contended that earlier this Court has given directions twice to the respondents to consider his application for withdrawal of resignation but in a cursory manner, those applications were considered and the same have been decided. Contention has also been raised that the State Government has committed serious error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner.