M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THE PETITIONER IS THE PRADHAN OF KUDUPALI mandal PANCHAYAT, KUDUPALI, HIREKERUR TALUK, dharwad DISTRICT. HE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ENDORSEMENT AS at ANNEXURE-A BY WHICH THE deputy COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT HAS communicated TO HIM HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESIGNATION said TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE petitioner BEARING THE DATE 13-2-1989. PETITIONER's CONTENTION BEFORE THIS COURT IS THAT he HAS NOT RESIGNED AND THAT ANY RESIGNATION LETTER purporting TO BEAR HIS SIGNATURE IS FORGERY AND therefore THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAS ACTED arbitrarily WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION WHETHER the PURPORTED LETTER OF RESIGNATION WAS GIVEN BY the PETITIONER. LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER WAS NOTIFIED to PRODUCE THE RECORDS ON 12-6-1989. SUBSEQUENTLY she PRODUCED THE RECORDS. FROM THE records IT IS SEEN THAT THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION dated 8-2-1989, AS COULD BE SEEN WAS RECEIVED in THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ON 14-2-1989. THE LETTER IS WRITTEN IN KAANADA AND sets OUT THE REASONS FOR THE RESIGNATION. THE REASON IS THAT HE IS NOT IN GOOD HEALTH, and HAS HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE AND IS UNDER TREATMENT of DOCTOR FOR THAT AILMENT. HE HAS BEEN adviced LONG REST AND THEREFORE HE IS UNABLE TO PERFORM the DUTIES AS PRADHAN OF THE MANDAL panchayat. HE HAS ALSO COMMUNICATED THAT HE HAS not BEEN COERCED BY ANYBODY TO SUBMIT HIS RESIGNATION. IT IS SIGNED IN KANNADA AS in THE LIGHT OF THE ASSERTION OF THE PETITIONER that HE HAS NOT TENDERED HIS RESIGNATION, THE court WAS INCLINED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SIGNATURE AS well AS THE WRITING IN THE PURPORTED RESIGNATION letter WAS THAT OF THE PETITIONER. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER WAS REQUIRED to PRODUCE THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF the MANDAL PANCHAYAT TO INDICATE THE ATTENDANCE of THE MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING AS WELL as THE MINUTES BOOK WHERE THE CHAIRMAN HAS signed. IT IS SEEN THAT SHANKARAPPA FAKIRAPPA kusgur (THE PETITIONER) HAS ALWAYS SIGNED IN THE registers IN ENGLISH. VAKAIALH FILED IN (HIS COURT has ALSO BEEN SIGNED IN ENGLISH. ADMITTEDLY, THE proceedings BOOK HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE FRADHAN in ENGLISH AS WELL AS THE SECRETARY OF THE mandal PANCHAYAT. IT IS SEEN THAT SHANKARAPPA FAKIRAPPA kusgur (THE PETITIONER) HAS ALWAYS SIGNED IN THE registers IN ENGLISH. VAKAIALH FILED IN (HIS COURT has ALSO BEEN SIGNED IN ENGLISH. ADMITTEDLY, THE proceedings BOOK HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE FRADHAN in ENGLISH AS WELL AS THE SECRETARY OF THE mandal PANCHAYAT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS court DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO BE PRESENT IN court AND ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, I. E. , ON 2-8-1989, THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO SIGN ON A blank WHILE PAPER HIS NAME IN ENGLISH AS WELL as IN KANNADA AND THAT PAPER SIGNED BY THE petitioner WAS MADE PART OF THE RECORDS. TODAY i HAVE MADE A NAKED EYE COMPARISON. IT IS SEEN that IHE HAND-WRITING IN THE PURPORTED LETTER OF resignation IS NOT OF THE PETITIONER. A PERSON WHO HAS WRITTEN THE SUBJECT MATTER of THE LETTER HAS ALSO SIGNED THE RESIGNATION LETTER. BUT A COMPARISON OF THE SIGNATURES TO THE NAKED eyes SHOW THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE between THE SIGNATURES EXECUTED IN KANNADA IN this COURT WHICH ARC FOUR AND DO NOT RESEMBLE the SIGNATURES ON THE PURPORTED RESIGNATION LETTER. THEREFORE THIS COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, should ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER. A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO SIGN in ENGLISH IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, MANDAL MEETINGS as WELL AS THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE meetings OF THE MANDAL PANCHAYATS IS UNLIKELY to SIGN IN KANNADA IF HE TENDERED HIS RESIGNATION even THOUGH ITS TEXT IS IN KANNADA WHEN THE TEXT of THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETINGS ARC ALSO IN kannada. THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY of THE PURPORTED RESIGNATION LETTER. THE DEPUTY commissioner HAS ACTED WITH HASTE WITHOUT making PROPER ENQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE LETTER submitted WAS DULY SIGNED AND SUBMITTED BY THE petitioner. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED order IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE WITH LIBERTY RESERVED to THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO HOLD FURTHER ENQUIRY in THE LIGHT OF THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE petitioner IN THIS COURT AND THEREAFTER ACT UPON the PURPORTED LETTER OF RESIGNATION IN THE LIGHT of HIS FINDING. THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION IS quashed. RULE WILL ACCORDINGLY ISSUE AND BE MADE ABSOLUTE. WRIT PETITION ALLOWED. --- *** --- .