UPENDRALAL Vs. NARAINEE DEVI JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Upendralal Choudhary challenges by this election petition the election of the respondent Smt. Narainee Devi Jha who was elected from Mandla Constituency No. 162 of the Vidhan Sabha of Madhya Pradesh. In the election many candidates had taken part but the petitioner has impleaded in his petition the respondent alone as the relief which he has sought in the petition is that the election of the respondent is void.

(2.) THE grounds on which the petition is based may be stated thus. The petitioner urged that he was in temporary Government service of the State of Madhya pradesh; that he had sent notice of his intention to terminate his service as Naib-Tahsildar on 29-11-1966; that he had sent one copy of the notice to the Collector, narsinghpur, and the other to the Secretary, Revenue Department and the acknowledgment receipts of the said two notices respectively are Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 on record; that the notice on the State Government had been served on 2911-1966 and therefore his services stood terminated as from 1-1-1967 on the expiry of a period of one month from the date of the service of his notice, he being entitled to terminate his service by one month's notice under Rule 12 of the madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permant Service)Rules 1960; that though some charges had been already framed against him on 16-10-1965, he was not under suspension on the date he sent the said notice of the termination of his services and that he had been reinstated and was working at Narsinghpur when he sent the notice dated 29-11-1966; that as he was not in government Service at the time when he filed his nomination paper in the month of January 1967, his nomination paper could not be legally rejected on the ground that he was disqualified to be a candidate under Article 191 (a) of the Constitution and therefore his nomination paper had been wrongly rejected by the Returning officer (Collector) Narsinghpur on 23-1-1967. The second contention urged by the petitioner in his petition was that the nomination paper of the respondent had been wrongly accepted as she held an office of profit at all relevant times on account of her holding the office of District honorary Family Planning Education Leader under the Government of India in the ministry of Health (Director General of Health Services, New Delhi ). It was averred in the petition that she was being granted honorarium of Rs. 2000 per year and that this rendered her disqualified to be a candidate for the State Legislature. The third contention advanced by the petitioner in his petition was that in order to facilitate the election of the party candidates the State Government mala fide declared that land revenue to the extent of Rs. 5 in sum and of land to the extent of 7. 5 acres in area was to be exempt from the payment of land revenue. The said declaration was made in the Ordinance No. 19 of 1966 which came into force on 23rd December 1966. It was also urged that the number of tenants affected by the said Ordinance in the Constituency was very large, they being more than thirty thousand. It was alleged in the petition that the declaration of the said Ordinance amounted to corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and rendered the election of the respondent void. (After stating the defence of the respondent and the issues and finding that the petitioner was a temporary government servant (paras 3 to 9) the judgment proceeded):-

(3.) IT is also clear from his statement Ex. P-2 which was made on 23-1-1967 before the Returning Officer that when he sent the notice of the termination of his services on 29-11-1966, a departmental enquiry was pending before the Collector, jabalpur, against him and that the said enquiry was commenced under the orders of the Government on 19-1-1965 and that actually the charges for the enquiry and statement of allegations were received by him on 26-11-1965. The question therefore which arises for consideration is as to whether simply taking advantage of the fact that he had been reinstated and was not under suspension he could, by sending a notice of his intention to resign, terminate his services even when the enquiry was pending against him This question was fully considered by a Division bench of this Court in V. P. Gidroniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1967 MPLJ 39 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 231 ). In that case the enquiry was against a Government servant who was placed under suspension by the Government. Their Lordships considered the question of the Government servant's rights to give a notice under Rule 12 of the rules for termination of his services in paragraph 7 of their judgment and observed: