Supreme Court ruling on Chairman's resignation and office of profit rules

The Supreme Court held that the resignation of the Chairman of the Board was effective from the date it was communicated, not requiring acceptance by the Government. As a result, on the date of scrutiny, the Chairman was not holding an office of profit. The Court also found that the Chairman had ceased to hold an office of profit due to the cessation of remuneration. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision that the rejection of the Chairman's nomination was improper, leading to the dismissal of appeals and setting aside the appellant's election.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the resignation of Shri Karam Singh from the office of Chairman of the Board took effect from the date of submission or from the date of acceptance by the Government.
2. Whether the office of Chairman of the Board held by Shri Karam Singh ceased to be an office of profit after January 8, 1990.

Summary:

1. Effective Date of Resignation:
The primary issue was whether Shri Karam Singh's resignation from the office of Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board took effect on January 31, 1990, the date he submitted his resignation, or on February 12, 1990, the date the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification accepting his resignation. The Supreme Court held that the resignation of the Chairman of the Board is unilateral in nature and does not require acceptance by the Government to be effective. The resignation took effect from the date it was communicated to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, i.e., January 31, 1990. Therefore, on the date of scrutiny, February 5, 1990, Shri Karam Singh was not holding an office of profit.

2. Office of Profit:
The second issue was whether the office of Chairman of the Board held by Shri Karam Singh ceased to be an office of profit after January 8, 1990, due to the notification that stopped his remuneration. The High Court found that since Shri Karam Singh had requested to stop his remuneration, which was accepted by the Government, he was not entitled to any remuneration from January 8, 1990. Thus, he was not holding an office of profit on the date of scrutiny. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue further, as the first issue's resolution was sufficient to decide the case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the nomination of Shri Karam Singh was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, confirming that the appellant's election was set aside due to the improper rejection of Shri Karam Singh's nomination. The matter was not considered academic despite the dissolution of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, as it could affect the appellant's liability to refund allowances received during his tenure.

---