The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Central government to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a declaration that any Constitutional functionary, who tenders his resignation to avoid being removed from his office, shall not be entitled to any perks, amenities, facilities and entitlements.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the government on a plea by one Pratik Vira flagging the trend of Constitutional functionaries resigning from office to avoid removal.
"It is the respectful submission of the Petitioner that those Constitutional functionaries under the Constitution who tender their resignations, whether to avoid any proceedings of removal or proceedings for no confidence motion, should not be entitled to the perks and all other incidental facilities attached to the constitutional office from where they have resign," the plea said.
According to the petitioner, there is a general feeling amongst the common citizens that Constitutional functionaries avoid any proceedings after which they would be removed and to frustrate such proceedings, they tender their resignation.
However, even after such resignation, they get the same perks, facilities etc. attached to their office.
As per the plea,
"Such practice is an anathema to the constitutional grievance and is directly contrary to the rule of law which is a very basic structure of the Constitution of India."
No Constitutional functionary should be entitled to any perk, amenities or facilities if he / she tenders resignation in the midst of their constitutionally prescribed tenure, it was contended.
In case of non-Constitutional functionaries, there are specific rules which do not permit such functionaries to resign if they are facing any departmental proceedings, the plea said.
The position of Constitutional functionaries should be much higher than non-Constitutional functionaries and they must demonstrate probity in public life by completing their tenure and, if required, facing the proceedings of removal like any other employee working for the nation, it was contended.
Hence, it was submitted that any provision which makes a Constitutional functionary entitled to perks, amenities and facilities even after resignation (tendered to avoid removal) should be declared as unconstitutional.
Advocates Sangramsingh R Bhonsle, Pushkara A Bhonsle, Sneha S Bhonsle, Sanmitra YP, Shruti Sharma and Bhramjyot Singh appeared for the petitioner.