Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Gour vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 165
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 WP-1916-2011
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-1916-2011
(SANTOSH GOUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-02-2020
Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri R.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and 6.
Petitioner; a Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Shukkarwdakalan, District Hoshangabad is before this Court against the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Commissioner setting aside the order dated 04.09.2009 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub Division Officer and order dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Collector.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of writ petition are in narrow compass: Petitioner alleged to have tendered resignation on 27.11.2001 purportedly on personal grounds. Thereafter, a fresh selection has taken place through advertisement dated 12.07.2002. Pursuant thereto petitioner as well as respondent No.6 amongest others applied for the post of Panchayat Karmi. Respondent No.6 was selected and accordingly, appointed vide order dated 12.08.2002. Since then he is working on the said post. In the year 2007, petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Director of Panchayat contending that the petitioner's resignation was in fact forged letter as he never signed and tendered resignation. Even otherwise the resignation was never accepted, therefore, he is entitled to continue to perform duties of Panchayat Karmi in preference to respondent No.6. It appears that the submission so advanced weighed heavily in the Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 03/03/2020 22:29:16 2 WP-1916-2011 mind of SDO, he concluded that the Rule 7 of M.P. Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 since was not followed in the matter of acceptance of resignation. Therefore, the entire procedure is vitiated. Hence, the resignation could not be said to come into force and accordingly, allowed the representation.
Respondent No.6 preferred an appeal against the same order before the Collector. The Collector has confirmed the order of the SDO. Thereafter, respondent No.6 preferred a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner has perused the entire record of Courts below and opined that after tendering of resignation on 27.11.2001, petitioner has sent as many as two reminders on 20.12.2001 and 27.12.2001 for reiterating the submission of the resignation.
That apart, petitioner himself has participated in the selection of Panchayat Karmi conducted in the year 2002 and having been unsuccessful has raised the aforesaid plea of non-acceptance of resignation seeking further continuance as Panchayat Karmi. Consequently, the Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to he impugned order inter alia contends that the procedure was not followed by the competent authority in the matter of acceptance of the resignation. However, he is at loss to state that he could not lay hand over any provision of law or rule which contemplates a procedure to be followed in the matter of tendering resignation. Hence, the argument so advanced is devoid of substance and therefore, has rightly been rejected by the Commissioner. Petitioner also does not Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 03/03/2020 22:29:16 3 WP-1916-2011 dispute that he has appeared in the subsequent selection test conducted in the year 2002 for the post of Panchayat Karmi but remained unsuccessful.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State and respondent supports the order of the Commissioner with the submission that the petitioner once has tendered the resignation, he had no right to hold the post. He could not be permitted to contend that his resignation was since never accepted, therefore, he is entitled to continue as Panchayat Karmi. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is expedient to observe that either party did not bring notice to the Court under which provision of law, the petitioner had preferred the revision before the Commissioner. Appeal was entertained by the Collector and thereafter revision by the Commissioner.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that once the petitioner has tendered resignation, the same has came into force immediately. There is no procedure prescribed in processing and acceptance of resignation either under the Panchayat Adhiniyam or Rules made thereunder.
Law is well settled that unless a procedure is prescribed to the contrary resignation comes into force no sooner the same is tendered before the competent authority. Hence, there is severance of relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent/state after tendering of the resignation. Further, petitioner himself has participated in the subsequent selection process for Panchayat Karmi and remained unsuccessful. In the obtaining facts Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 03/03/2020 22:29:16 4 WP-1916-2011 and circumstances, it is not expedient to accede the prayer to the petitioner to further continued as Panchayat Karmi .
Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 03/03/2020 22:29:16