Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. So far other cited witnesses are concerned, deposition on affidavit of one Sri Ravindra Jha was brought on record, however during trial he was not produced either to identify his signature on his deposition on affidavit, which has been brought on record nor he was tendered for his cross- examination.

6. Since all the four issues, which were framed in the present case are inter-related, all the issues are required to be dealt with conjointly. The election petitioner who has appeared in person has argued that once he had tendered application for his voluntary retirement on 31.12.2013, after expiry of three months even in case of non -acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement, it was deemed to be accepted, and as such, there was no further requirement to produce any document regarding acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement and on 31.03.2014 he had ceased to be a Government Servant. Accordingly, he was not to be treated as disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India from contesting the election. To substantiate his submission that after expiry of three months from the date of submission of his application for voluntary retirement he had ceased to be Government Servant, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Patna High Court E.P. No.4 of 2014 dt.21-06-2017 reported in AIR 1978 SC 17 DINESH CHANDRA SANGMA Versus STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS. He has argued that after submission of nomination papers i.e. on 19.04.2014, had there been any defect in the nomination papers, those defects were required to be indicated in the check- list which was issued by the Returning Officer after submission of nomination papers, nor petitioner was asked to produce any letter either with respect to acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement or acceptance of his resignation- letter. He submits that even after receiving no response regarding acceptance of his voluntary retirement, the petitioner on 1st April , 2014 had tendered resignation- letter, however, the election petitioner was never asked by the Returning Officer to satisfy her regarding the judgments that he was not a Government Servant on the date of filing of nomination papers. According to the election petitioner after issuance of check- list on 19.04.2014 suddenly on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers i.e. on 21.04.2014 the Returning Officer asked him to produce letter of acceptance of his resignation- letter. Though the petitioner requested for granting some time to apprise her with the legal position, his nomination papers in form nos. 38 and 39 was rejected vide Annexure VII and VIIA to the election petition, which has been brought on record along with verification of the election petitioner. He has argued that in view of Section 36 (5) of the R.P. Act Patna High Court E.P. No.4 of 2014 dt.21-06-2017 it was duty on the part of the Returning Officer to grant some time to enable the election petitioner to satisfy the Returning Officer with the rulings of the Supreme Court, however, contrary to the statutory provisions, his nomination papers were rejected. He has placed reliance on (2012 ) 1 SCC 762 RAMESH ROUT Versus RABINDRA NATH ROUT on the point that had there been any missing documents in the nomination papers, in the check- list those facts were required to be incorporated, however on 19.04.2014 after submission of nomination papers the check- list was issued in which no infirmity was shown. He has also placed reliance on AIR 2001 SC 2583 Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay on the point that merely on the ground that his resignation was not accepted it will not be deemed that he was holding an office of profit on the date of either submission of nomination papers or scrutiny of nomination papers. Besides the aforesaid judgments the petitioner has also referred other judgments which were noticed by this Court however, considering the fact that those decisions were not having any bearing for adjudication of the present case, this Court is refrained from incorporating all such case laws.