Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (4) TMI 610 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election petition filed by the appellant was lacking in material facts as required under section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Whether the appellant was holding an office of profit on the date of scrutiny, thereby disqualifying him under Article 102(1)(c) of the Constitution.
3. Whether there is a difference between "voluntary retirement" and "resignation" in service jurisprudence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Lack of Material Facts in Election Petition:
The core issue was whether the election petition filed by the appellant contained the material facts required under section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court held that the appellant failed to plead two crucial material facts: the acceptance of his voluntary retirement application by the appointing authority before the date of scrutiny and the acceptance of his request for waiver of the three-month notice period. The absence of these facts led to the dismissal of the election petition. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that an election petition must include a concise statement of material facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. The Court cited precedents, including the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors., to distinguish between 'material facts' and 'particulars,' underscoring that omission of a single material fact results in an incomplete cause of action.

2. Office of Profit and Disqualification:
The appellant's nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds that he was holding an office of profit on the date of scrutiny, as his voluntary retirement had not been accepted within the required notice period. The appellant argued that he had relinquished his charge and was not holding an office of profit. However, the Court held that the appellant should have explicitly stated in his petition that his request for waiver of the notice period was granted and that he ceased to be a government servant on the date of scrutiny. The failure to include these material facts justified the rejection of his nomination papers and the dismissal of his election petition.

3. Difference Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation:
The appellant contended that there was no difference between "voluntary retirement" and "resignation" in service jurisprudence. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing the case of Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr., which established that voluntary retirement and resignation are distinct concepts with different legal implications. Voluntary retirement requires the completion of a specified period of service and the approval of the appointing authority, whereas resignation can be unilateral and does not necessarily require prior permission. The Court also referenced the case of UCO Bank and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal to further clarify the distinction, noting that voluntary retirement is a bilateral process involving the employer's acceptance, whereas resignation terminates the employer-employee relationship upon acceptance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition for lack of material facts, affirming that the appellant's failure to plead essential facts regarding the acceptance of his voluntary retirement and waiver of the notice period was fatal to his case. The Court also clarified the legal distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation, reinforcing the requirement for explicit approval in cases of voluntary retirement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates