DHANANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Ward Commissioner for Ward No. 25 of the Nagar Parishad, Hilsa in the district of Nalanda on 22.8.2011. Thereafter, he contested for the post of Deputy Chief Councillor of the Nagar Parishad and was elected on 22.9.2011. It is his case that soon he got dissatisfied with the functioning of the Executive Officer and the Chief Councillor due to their negligence towards the development work and their dishonesty. He claimed that he always used to raise finger and used to voice his objection to their functioning. Finally, after getting disgusted with their activities, he went to meet the Chief Councillor in the office on 17.1.2013 and offered his resignation letter to her. However, the Chief Councillor advised him to continue and serve the people. He accepted her advice and accordingly he took back the resignation letter and returned. But, when he reached back home he found that his resignation letter was missing from his pocket. Hence, the very next day he reported this fact to the officer-in-charge of the Hilsa Police Station, vide Annexure-3. The next day i.e. on 19th petitioner visited the office of the Nagar Parishad in Hilsa and handed over a letter addressed to the Chief Councillor, to one employee in the office, namely Saket Kumar, in which he requested her not to accept the resignation letter as he had decided to continue on the post, and took his receiving on a copy of the same, vide Annexure-4. On that very day, he also sent an application to the Collector-cum-District Election Officer through fax, vide Annexure-5, in which he mentioned that he had come to know about somebody having handed over his misplaced resignation to the Executive Officer without his knowledge. Hence, he requested that no action be taken on the same. On 21.1.2013, he also faxed an application to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bihar, Patna, vide Annexure-6, for the same purpose. On that day itself, he again submitted an application in the office of Executive Officer as well as the Chief Councillor requesting them not to act upon his resignation which was also received by the said employee Saket Kumar, vide Annexure-7. However, he shocked and surprised on 19.2.2013 when he received a letter dated 9.2.2013 of the Chief Councillor through registered post, vide Annexure-8, informing him that as, within one week, she had not received any application from him withdrawing his resignation, the same has been accepted. This letter of the Chief Councillor, annexed as Annexure-8, is under challenge in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sent sufficient information to all concerned and had also repeatedly submitted his application in the office of Chief Councillor intimating about his position to withdraw his resignation. However, the Chief Councillor in connivance with the Executive Officer, ignored all his subsequent applications and accepted his resignation on the ground that she had not received any letter withdrawing the same within one week.

(2.) Both the Executive Officer, who is respondent No. 4, and the Chief Councillor, who is respondent No. 5, have appeared and filed separate counter affidavits. In both the counter affidavits, their stand is identical. It is asserted that after tendering his resignation, petitioner never wrote any letter withdrawing the same. Hence, his resignation was accepted and the Department was accordingly informed on 9.2.2013 with a request to fill up the vacancy, vide Annexure-B. It is asserted that the petitioner had tendered his resignation in a meeting on 17.1.2013 which was placed in the file and subsequent steps leading to acceptance of the same and intimation to the Department are all recorded in the file. The allegations of connivance and mala fide intentions on their part have been denied. The information to the Officer-in-charge of the police station is asserted to be collusive and it is also asserted that the person who is said to have received the letter in the office of the Nagar Parishad was not an official staff of respondent No. 4 or 5 and no such letter, as contained in Annexure-4, was served on them. It is asserted that the said letter is a manufactured one for the purposes of this case. The application of the petitioner sent to the Principal Secretary is not denied, but it is said that the same was not properly written to respondent No. 5 for withdrawal of resignation. It is also said that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 never received any direction from the respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary in the matter. The Executive Officer has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit in support of the stand that the parson, who is said to have received the letter of the petitioner, was not a regular staff of the Nagar Parishad, as evident from the report sent to the Department with regard to strength of employees in the Nagar Parishad, through letter dated 1.6.2013, vide Annexure-D.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the counter affidavits and the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the case and has referred to Section 25 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and submitted that the resignation letter has to take effect after 7 days, unless, within the said period of 7 days, the Deputy Chief Councillor withdrew the resignation by writing under his hand addressed either to the Divisional Commissioner or to the Chief Councillor as the case may be. He submitted that, in view of the denial by the respondents of said Saket Kumar being a regular employee of the Nagar Parishad, the onus lay on the petitioner to prove that his. so-called applications were in fact filed in the office of Nagar Parishad and were placed on the file for being considered by the Chief Councillor.