WP/65866/2016 of SMT RATHNAMMA Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 29 December 2016

ORDER

Heard|Sr1.H.C.Shivaramu,learned Advocateappearing for petitioner and Sri Chandrashekaraian,|learned HCGP appearing tor respondents. By consent ofthe learned Advocates appearing for parties, writ|petition is taken up for final disposal.

iaPetitioner is calling in question order dated.17.12.2016 passed by first respondent — Annexure-D|whereunder resignation letter submitted by petitioner tothe post of President of Yeliyoor Gram Panchayat,|Kunigal Taluk came to be accepted and in exercise ofthe power vested under Section 48(3)(1), same has beendeclared to have become vacant by first respondent.

3. )Petitioner herein was elected as member ofYeliyoor Gram Panchayat, Halakere Constituency in theelections held on 05.06.2015 — Annexure-A. Petitioner|

O|

sot elected as its President in the election held on|02.07.2015 and since then, petitioner has _ beefunctioning and discharging her duties as President ofYeliyoor Gram Panchayat. However, for reasons best|known, on 28.11.2016 -Annexure-B she submitted her|resignation to the post of President. Thereafter, first|respondent issued a notice on 09.12.2016 — Annexure-Ccalling upon petitioner to appear for enquiry on|17.12.2016 before accepting the resignation and to|satisfy himself about the genuiness of her letter. It is|thereafter, on 17.12.2016, an enquiry has been held|and resignation letter came to be accepted on the|esround that said resignation letter has been voluntarilysubmitted by petitioner herself and she had not|withdrawn said resignation letter within 10 days as|provided under Section 48(3)(1) of the Karnataka|Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘Act’.

4It is the contention of Sri H.C.Shivaramu,|learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that first|respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry as|

4. provided under second proviso to sub-section (1) of|section 48 of the Act and only on recording a|satisfaction and recording such satisfaction, he ought tohave accepted said resignation and in view of the|satisfaction having not been recorded under the|impugned order, acceptance of resignation is contrary|to scheme of the Act or in other words, it would not'meet the requirement of second proviso to sub-section|(1) of Section 48 of the Act. Hence, he prays for'|quashing of the same.

5Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for.respondents would support the impugned order.

6. Havingheard thelearnedAdvocatesappearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it|would disclose that resignation letter came to be|submittedTO|firstrespondentbypetitionerOT]28.11.2016 whereunder petitioner has stated that on)account of mental pressure and due to domestic work|pressure, she is unable to discharge her duties as.President of the village panchayat. Said resignation|

Conclusion

letter is duly signed by petitioner herself and her'signature was attested by the Panchayat Development|Officer of Yeltyoor Gram panchayat as can be seen from|resignation letter - Annexure-B. In fact, petitioner is ©not disputing this fact. Said resignation letter came tobe forwarded to first respondent and first respondent|issued a notice of enquiry dated 09.12.2016 -|Annexure-C to the petitioner calling upon her to appear|in person on 17.12.2016 tor the proposed enquiry tosatisfy himself about the genuiness of said resignation|letter. On the date of enquiry, petitioner appeared|before the enquiry Officer i.e., first respondent. Thoughlearned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has madea valiant attempt to contend that due to pressure from|third parties, petitioner was perforced to submit her|resignation letter and petitioner had brought this fact tothe notice of first respondent who did not record her|submission|cannotbe|acceptedsincesaidplearemained a plea, since it was not supported by any|proof of such statement having made before first|respondent and there is no supporting document|

6|

namely, any representation having been submitted by|petitioner to first respondent to the _ said_ effeimmediately thereafter. If there was any force or|coercion as contended, petitioner could have submitted|a written representation to first respondent on the date|of enquiry or immediately thereafter. Records would|alsodisclosethatpetitionerhadsubmittedtheresignation letter on 28.11.2016 and enquiry was held|on 17.12.2016 and during this interregnum period|petitioner could have withdrawn her resignation letter|or she could have submitted a representation to first|respondent explaining the alleged circumstances under|which she submitted such resignation and _ alsexpressing her intention to withdraw said resignation|letter. No such exercise was undertaken by petitioner.It is because of this precise reason, first respondent —|authority has accepted the resignation of petitioner|which undisputedly was voluntarily submitted by her|and she having not withdrawn the said resignation|within 10 days from the date of such submission, samecame to be accepted by first respondent.

TSInsofar as contention ot learned Advocate|appearing for petitioner that there should have been|subjective satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner by|making a roving enquiry, cannot be accepted inasmuch|as, there was no whisper or contention raised by the|petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner about|resignationhavingbeenobtainedunderthreat,coercion, undue influence or inducement as indicated insecond proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the|Act. In the absence of such plea, there was no|necessity for conducting any further enquiry and|petitioner herself admitted before first respondent that|she had tendered her resignation voluntarily. In that|view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ|petition and it stands rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE

':7