BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABU Ram, Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Pinjore, challenges resolution Annexure P-4 dated February 21, 1994, passed by the Panchayat Samiti in the meeting held on that dale whereby resignation submitted by the petitioner from chairmanship of the Samiti was considered in spite of the fact that the same had been withdrawn and ultimately the Samiti accepted the resignation in view of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the petitioner was removed from the post of Chairman in accordance with the Rules. Vide this resolution Shri Kanwarjit Singh was appointed as Chairman. The resignation letter was submitted by the petitioner on February 9, 1994, to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. On February 21, 1994, he submitted another letter withdrawing his resignation. He also sent a telegram to this effect to the Director, Panchayats, Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Pinjore. The letter was also placed before the Panchayat Samiti at the time resolution-Annexure P.4 was passed. The petitioner moved the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated March 6, 1994-Annexure P.5 for withdrawal of his resignation. Annexure P.3 is the letter dated February 20, 1994, copies of which were sent to different respondents. Similar letter is Annexure P.2. The agenda for the meeting which was circulated to the members of the Panchayat Samiti, Pinjore, is contained in Annexure P.1. The first item was regarding the acceptance of the resignation of the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti and the other item was "any other with the permission of the Chairman."

(2.) ON notice of motion having been issued, written statements have been filed by the respondents. Respondent No. 5 Kanwarjit singh filed a separate written statement. The official respondents appear to have taken an alternative plea. According to them the resolution passed by the Samiti, was in fact related to removal of the petitioner from chairmanship on the requisition submitted by members of the Panchayat Samiti. Annexure R.1 is copy of the letter written by different members of the Samiti to the Deputy Commissioner to convene meeting for passing no confidence motion' against Babu Ram, the Chairman. Annexure R.2 is copy of the affidavit of Kanwarjit Singh in support of application Annexure R.1. The Deputy Commissioner conveyed the order Annexure R.3 on February 17, 1994 to call meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and proceed in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Act for taking necessary action. Annexure R.4 is the copy of the resolution dated February 21, 1994. Respondent No. 5 Kanwarjit Singh took up preliminary objections, inter alia, asserting that the petitioner had concealed material facts that 23 members of the Samiti had given the application for expressing 'no confidence motion' against the Chairman. The Deputy Commissioner had ordered on February 13, 1994 giving direction to the Sub Divisional Officer (c), Kalka, to convene meeting Under Section 18(1) of the Act. Thus, meeting was called on February 21, 1994 wherein the resignation as well as 'no confidence motion1 were considered. 20 members out of 25 raised their hands for removal of the petitioner. Further details of the resolution passed are given. It is further alleged that the petitioner was estopped by his own act and conduct to challenge his election as Chairman as he had participated in the nomination of another candidate Giani Sukhdev Singh against the petitioner. On merits similar pleas have been taken.

(3.) THE pleadings of the parties aforesaid are required to be considered keeping in view the provisions of the Act aforesaid. The first question for consideration is as to whetther the resignation letter of the petitioner which had been admittedly withdrawn before the meeting of the Members of the Samiti was held on February 21,1994 could be accepted so that the petitioner could cease to be Chairman. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in Virinder Paul Sharma v. Food Corporation of India, 1992(2) SLR 104. In this case Virinder Paul Sharma who was working as Assistant with the Food Corporation of India had submitted his resignation (telegram), stating "with immediate effect." A letter was also written in this respect. He was advised to submit his resignation in a proper way and also to deposit three months' salary. In July 1985, he submitted his representation to the District Magistrate to treat the resignation as withdrawn. He was informed vide letter dated January 8, 1986 that his resignation was accepted with effect from December 13,1983. It was held by the High Court that after the resignation was withdrawn the same could not be accepted. Such acceptance of resignation was unsustainable in law. It was observed that before acceptance of the resignation, the same was withdrawn. The order decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is of Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Sh. P.K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083, submitted his resignation to be effective from June, 1986. The Bank accepted it from the date of the resignation and it was held that it amounted to forcing termination on an employee. In para 7 of the judgment it was held that since the resignation was ' withdrawn Shri Mittal continued to be in service of the Bank. It was observed as under:" It is true that there is no specific provision in the regulations permitting the employee to withdraw the resignation. It is, however, not necessary that there should be any such specific rule. Until "the regulation become effective on the term of the letter read with regulation 20, it is open to the employee, on general principles, to withdraw his letter of resignation. That is why, in some cases of public services, this right of withdrawal is also made subject to the permission of the employer. There is no such clause here. It is not necessary to labour this point further as it is well settled by the earlier decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, 1968(3) SCR 337, Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, 1973(3) SCR 12 and Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987(2) SLJ 280 (CAT). This Court also considered the question of withdrawal of resignation in Ramesh K. Srivastava v. Guru Nanak University, Amritsar, I.L.R. 1994(1) Punjab and Haryana 48. It was held as under : "The resignation in the present case could be accepted only by the Syndicate and there is no quarrel with the proposition that before acceptance of the resignation, the same can be successfully withdrawn. The petitioner had withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted by the syndicate. Consequently shall be deemed to be in service for all this while."