The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Centre on a PIL seeking directions to deny retirement perks, amenities, facilities and entitlements to judges and other constitutional functionaries who resign to avoid removal from office.A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana asked the Centre to respond to the petition filed by Pratik Vira, flagging the trend of Constitutional functionaries resigning from office to avoid removal.“It is the submission of the petitioner that those constitutional functionaries … 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 to resign,” Vira’s petition submitted.‘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,” the petitioner submitted.There was 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, he said, pointing out that even after such resignation, they get the same perks, facilities etc. attached to their office.Faced with proceedings for his removal for misconduct over recovery of unaccounted half-burnt wads of cash from his official residence in Delhi on March 14 last year during a fire incident, Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on April 9. The outcome of the PIL will have a direct bearing on Justice Varma.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 PIL 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 submitted.Any provision which made a Constitutional functionary entitled to perks, amenities and facilities even after resignation (tendered to avoid removal) should be declared unconstitutional, the petitioner demanded.“The High Constitutional Office necessarily imposes an unwritten constitutional obligation upon such constitutional functionaries, either to complete their tenure or to face a transparent procedure of removal, an easy option of resigning to avoid removal is neither contemplated nor desirable, and these kinds of resignation defeat the confidence which the Constitution places on the high constitutional functionaries,” the PIL submitted.