HARDEO SINGH Vs. PRAMUKH ZILA PARISHAD SIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Hardeosingh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the orders of the Pramukh, Zila Parishad, Sikar, rejecting the petitioner's application for withdrawal of the resignation and accepting and sanctioning the resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's discharge of duties as Pradhan of the Panchayat samiti, Fatehpur.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these-The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur in the year 1965. On 27-1-1970 he signed a resignation letter. The same was forwarded by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur, on 28-1-1970 to the Zila Pramukh, Sikar. However, on 2-2-1970, the petitioner sent a letter withdrawing the letter of resignation and the same was received by the Zila Pramukh on 3-2-1970. According to the petitioner, the letter withdrawing the resignation was received by the zila Parishad before the sanction of the resignation. The petitioner's further case is that the Zila Pramukh, on a mistaken view of law, held that he having received the resignation had no power to allow its withdrawal. He, therefore, rejected the letter withdrawing the resignation and sanctioned the resignation vide his order Ex. 3. He also made an endorsement on the resignation letter Ex. 1 "accepted". The letter sanctioning the resignation was received in the office of the panchayat Samiti on 5-2-1970 and was entered in the Inward Register vide entry marked Ex. 4. After receipt of the sanction of the Zila pramukh, the Vikas Adhikari issued orders on 3-2-1970 that the Up-Pradhan should work as a Pradhan. After this order, the respondents began interfering with the work of the petitioner and he, therefore, sent a letter on 28-2-1970 to the Zila Pramukh and a copy to the Collector and District Development Officer Sikar, asserting his right to function as pradhan and stopping interfering with his work, but his claim was rejected and interference with his work continued. He, therefore, filed the present writ application and prayed that the orders of the Zila pramukh rejecting his prayer for withdrawing the resignation and the order sanctioning his resignation be quashed and the respondents be restrained from interfering with his work. His contention is that he has an absolute right to withdraw his resignation until the resignation becomes effective and he vacates the office. In the alternative, he contended that the letter withdrawing resignation was received by the zila Pramukh before the sanction of the resignation and the Zila pramukh should have considered the letter of withdrawal before accepting the resignation and he acted under a mistaken view of law in holding that after the receipt of resignation in his office, he had no jurisdiction to consider an application for withdrawal of the resignation.

(3.) THE writ has been opposed by the Zila Pramukh. The respondent's case is that the resignation was accepted by the Zila Pramukh before the receipt of the letter withdrawing the resignation. According to the respondent, the resignation becomes effective on the grant of sanction by the Zila Pramukh and the subsequent communication of information to the Panchayat Samiti Office was a mere formal affair and would not enable the petitioner to withdraw his resignation after its acceptance by the Zila Pramukh.