1. Removal of Municipal Council President under Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 — Challenge to removal order on grounds of lack of reasoning and personal hearing. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 223
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : S.B.Majmudar : Y.K.Sabharwal
State Of U.P.
Versus
Nand Kumar Aggarwal
Case No. : 695 of 2000
Date of Decision : 1/31/00
Important Points
A reasoned order is necessary for removal, but personal hearing is not mandatory. The respondent's explanation must be considered in the removal proceedings.
Subject
Administrative Law - Removal Proceedings
Act Referred
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916: S.48(2), S.48(2-A), S.48
Headnote
DELAY - Municipal Council President Removal - The court considered the removal of the President/Chairman of a Municipal Council and the requirement of a reasoned order and personal hearing as per the U.P. State of U.P. & Anr. v. Nand Kumar Agarwal Municipalities Act, 1916. The court held that a reasoned order is necessary for removal, but personal hearing is not mandatory.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent, President/Chairman of Municipal Council, Tanakpur, was ordered to be removed from office without a reasoned order and without a personal hearing. The High Court quashed the removal order, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the removal order was not devoid of reasoning, but it was necessary to consider the respondent's explanation for one of the charges. The court modified the decision to require a fresh reasoned order after appropriate enquiry and consideration of the respondent's explanation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the necessity of a reasoned order and personal hearing in the removal of the President/Chairman of a Municipal Council.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a reasoned order is necessary for removal, but personal hearing is not mandatory. It also emphasized the importance of considering the respondent's explanation in the removal proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with modifications to require a fresh reasoned order after appropriate enquiry and consideration of the respondent's explanation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the removal order was unreasoned and whether the failure to provide a personal hearing invalidated the proceedings under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. (Para 4 )
3. The removal order was reasoned, but the authorities failed to consider the respondent's explanation regarding one of the charges. (Para 5 )
4. Personal hearing is not mandatory under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, but the explanation offered by the delinquent must be considered. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal disposed of; High Court's direction for fresh enquiry maintained, modified to clarify that personal hearing is not required but explanations must be considered. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Is a personal hearing mandatory for the removal of a President under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916?
No, personal hearing is not contemplated under the express language of Section 48, although authorities may grant one if they deem it fit during an enquiry. (Para 5 )
7. What are the requirements for a valid removal order under Section 48(2-A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916?
The State Government must issue a show cause notice, consider the explanation offered, conduct any necessary enquiry, and record the reasons for removal in writing. (Para 5 )
8. Does the failure to consider a specific explanation in a removal order invalidate the proceedings?
Yes, if the explanation offered by the respondent regarding a specific charge is not considered by the authorities, the order may be set aside in favor of a fresh enquiry. (Para 5 )
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) LEAVE granted.
(3) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal by their consent.
(4) THE Respondent who was the President/Chairman of Municipal Council, Tanakpur, District Champavat, U.P., was ordered to be removed from his office after serving him notice as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the U.P. State of U.P. & Anr. v. Nand Kumar Agarwal Municipalities Act, 1916 ( for short the Act). The said removal order was challenged by the Respondent before the High Court. The High Court has quashed the said removal order on two grounds (1) that the said order is not a reasoned order ; and (2) that personal hearing was not given to the respondent before passing the said order. Having obtained special leave to appeal the appellants have moved this Court for consideration of the order of the High Court.
(5) A mere look at Section 48 (2-A) of the Act shows that after issuing show cause notice to the concerned alleged delinquent and after considering the explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, pass the orders of removal of the President from his office. A copy of the order of removal dated 15th July 1999 was shown to us. On a perusal of the said order we found that it could not be said that it was not a reasoned order. That part of the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. So far as the question of giving personal hearing is concerned, on the express language of Section 48 it must be held that personal hearing is not contemplated in the said provision, though of course, if the authorities think it fit, they may give the opportunity of personal hearing while holding appropriate enquiry. In the present case, however, the impugned order cannot be voided on the ground that personal hearing was not given. However, one aspect of the matter has to be kept in view. A look at the impugned order of 15th July, 1999 shows that so far as charge no.2 is concerned the explanation of the respondent was not at all considered by the authorities. Consequently, the final order passed by the High Court directing fresh enquiry deserves to be maintained subject to the following modification:
1. In the removal proceedings no personal hearing is required to be given to the respondent, if the authorities do not think it fit to do so. 2. After appropriate enquiry under Section 48 of the Act and after considering the explanation offered by the respondent in connection with both the charges levelled against him the authorities may pass a fresh reasoned order.
(6) SUBJECT to these modifications this appeal is disposed of.
(7) NO costs.
