1 WP No.2349/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2349 of 2010 Smt.Suvarnarekha Suresh Ranadive ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. P.M.Patil for the petitioner. Mr. S.R.Nargolkar, G.P for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 27th September 2010 P.C. 1. This petition is filed by former Judicial Officer challenging the communication from the State Government accepting her resignation. The relevant facts as disclosed on record are that on 30th July 2009, the petitioner who was then holding the post of Judicial Magistrate, First Class addressed a letter to the Principal 2 WP No.2349/10 Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department of the State of Maharashtra, tendering her resignation from the post of Judicial Magistrate. The ultimate paragraph of this letter reads as under:- I therefore request you kindly accept my resignation. Kindly treat this a statutory notice of three months and relieve me at the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of this notice. I request you kindly allow me benefit of leave encashment or other benefits to which I am be legally entitled. 2. In the petition, she does not state as to how this registration letter was dispatched. However from the letter it appears that the letter was sent to the Principal Secretary through the District Judge, Sindhudurg and the Registrar General of this Court. She on 7th August 2008 addressed another letter to the Principal Secretary stating therein that her resignation was tendered by her under mental depression and therefore she withdrew her resignation. 3 WP No.2349/10 Within a few days i.e. On 14th August 2009 she addressed another communication stating therein “With reference to the letter, resignation and the fax relating to withdrawal of my resignation, I submit that after reconsideration, I have firmly and finally decided to resign from the judiciary and I do not want to press my letter (fax) of withdrawal of resignation. I therefore, request you Sir kindly to consider my resignation letter dated 30th July 2009”. 3. Then on 3rd November 2009 according to the petitioner she addressed one more letter to the Principal Secretary stating therein: I, therefore, withdraw my resignation herewith. The withdrawal is within limitation. The sympathetic view may please be taken and the notice of resignation sent by me may please be treated as withdrawn” 4. In paragraph no.8 of the petition, petitioner states“”In 4 WP No.2349/10 addition to the postal communication, the petitioner also faxed the said letter” This letter dated 3rd November 2009 was addressed to the Principal Secretary and was sent through the Principal District Judge, Sindhudurg and the Registrar General of this Court. In the petition, there is no averment as to on what date this withdrawal letter was received by the Principal Secretary. On 6th November 2009, the State Government issued a communication accepting the resignation of the petitioner dated 30th July 2009 with effect from the date on which she has been ordered to hand over charge. She was accordingly relieved from service on 20th November 2009. In these facts, the challenge to the letter dated 6th November 2009 accepting her resignation dated 30th July 2009 is that the acceptance is not valid because the resignation was withdrawn by letter dated 3rd November 2009 and also because she was relieved within a period of three months. Now there is admittedly no averment in the petition as to the date on which the withdrawal letter dated 3rd November 2009 was received by the Government. There is nothing on record placed to show that the Government received the withdrawal letter before 5 WP No.2349/10 6th November 2009 when the Government decided to accept the resignation. Perusal of the resignation letter dated 30th July 200 shows that she had requested the Government to accept the resignation and had requested that this letter should be treated as three months notice and has derived that she should be relieved at the expiry of three months. She has been relieved on 20th November 2009 which is clearly beyond a period of three months from the date of the letter. Even if one accepts the case of the petitioner that the resignation letter was received by the Principal Secretary on 13th August 2009 then also the petitioner was relieved three months from the date of receipt of the resignation letter by the State Government. 5. The petitioner has made vile allegations against the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court without joining him as a party. Obviously, therefore, those allegations cannot be taken into consideration. In our opinion, there is one more reason why we cannot entertain this petition. Even assuming that there is some irregularities in the State Government accepting the resignation of 6 WP No.2349/10 the petitioner, petitioner was a judicial officer. Her conduct as disclosed from the record shows that she is unfit to be a judicial officer. Firstly, she makes wanton and vile allegations against the former Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court without joining him as a party. Her allegation is that she submitted resignation letter because of the pressure exerted by him but perusal of the letter dated 30th July 2009 shows that it is an elaborate letter where she has disclosed what according to her are facts in detail and then she expressed her desire to resign. Even according to the averments in the petition, a period of 7 days lapsed between the date of the alleged meeting with the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the writing of the resignation letter. During this period there is no complaint made to anybody. Then within 7 days of sending the letter, the petitioner wanted to withdraw her resignation letter. What is pertinent is in the withdrawal letter dated 7th August 2008 there is no allegation made that any pressure was exerted by Hon’ble Chief Justice for the tendering of the resignation. Then within a few days, she withdrew the withdrawal letter i.e. On 14th August 2009 and in the withdrawal letter she states “I have firmly and finally 7 WP No.2349/10 decided to resign” but her firm resolve to resign lasts barely for about 2 ½ months because on 3rd November 2009 she again writes a letter withdrawing her resignation. Even in this letter, there is no allegation made of any pressure exerted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Thus, the record reveals the tendency of the petitioner to make vile allegations without any basis. The record also discloses her fickle mindedness. In our opinion, therefore, she is not a litigant in whose favour this Court can exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction which is in the discretion of this Court. The petition, in our opinion, has to be rejected. Petition is accordingly rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)