2010 Supreme(SC) 48

2010 (1) Supreme 102
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam, J.
Sharda Kailash Mittal — Appellant
versus
State of M.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20219 of 2008)
Decided on : 12-01-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Power under Section 41- A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act,1961 is not to be exercised for minor irregularities in discharge of duties by the holder of the elected post.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act,1961 – Section 41 – A – Issuance of show cause notice to Appellant President of Nagar Palika,Jora, District Muraina – Charges leveled by respondent against appellant that she had caused monetary loss to the Panchayat by publishing advertisements for more than Rs.1500/-,she had struck off her signature from the minutes dated 27.12.2005 and the then Chief Municipal Officer signed the minutes, which had been accepted by the respondent and that she had shown undue haste in appointing one H as the Chief Municipal Officer and compelled him to make various payments to the tune of Rs. 8,12,783/-Order passed by Chief Secretary, City Administration and Development Department, removing appellant from post of Chairman – Writ Petition – Dismissed by Single Judge – Writ Appeal – Dismissed by Division Bench – Special Leave Petition – State Government failed to appreciate that decisions for publication of advertisements, calling for tenders and payment of salaries were made by entire council and President – Appellant could not be singled out for those decisions taken by Council – High Court failed to appreciate that removal under Section 41 – A of the Act could be resorted to only under grave and exceptional circumstances which were not present in the appellant’s case – No charge of causing financial loss to the Nagar Palika could be established by State Government – Advertisements, tenders calling for attending day – to – day work of the Municipality such as provision for drinking water, sanitation etc. were duly put out only after due deliberation by Council of Nagar Palika and no decision was taken by appellant herself – The materials placed by appellant before the State Government as well as before the High Court showed that tender had been put out after due deliberation by the Council and all works had been completed after satisfying the conditions prescribed therein – Single Judge as well as Division Bench not only failed to consider circumstances and the exigencies under which appellant was compelled to make the appointment of one H as Chief Municipal Officer and also ignored the fact that the appointment was actually made for payment of salaries and to make the payments to contractors who pressed for disbursement of the same to their workers – In the light of said conclusion and in absence of a finding that any loss was caused, the decision of State Government could not be sustained – Impugned order of State Government removing the appellant as President of the Nagar Palika, Zora, District Muraina under Section 41 – A of the Act set aside. (Paras 15, 18 to 22)

        Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act,1961 – Section 41 – A – For taking action under Section 41 – A for removal of President, Vice – President or Chairman of any Committee, power is conferred on the State Government with no provision of any appeal – The action of removal casts a serious stigma on the personal and public life of the concerned office bearer and may result in his/her disqualification to hold such office for the next term – The exercise of power, therefore, has serious civil consequences on the status of an office bearer – There are no sufficient guidelines in the provisions of Section 41 – A as to the manner in which the power has to be exercised, except that it requires that reasonable opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the office bearer proceeded against – Keeping in view the nature of the power and the consequences that flows on its exercise it has to be held that such power can be invoked by the State Government only for very strong and weighty reason- Such a power is not to be exercised for minor irregularities in discharge of duties by the holder of the elected post – The provision has to be construed in strict manner because the holder of office occupies it by election and he/she is deprived of the office by an executive order in which the electorate has no chance of participation. (Para 18)

       Facts of the Case

        A show cause notice was issued to Appellant President of Nagar Palika,Jora, District Muraina herein in the instant case. Charges leveled by respondent against appellant were that she had caused monetary loss to the Panchayat by publishing advertisements for more than Rs.1500/-,she had struck off her signature from the minutes dated 27.12.2005 and the then Chief Municipal Officer signed the minutes, which had been accepted by the respondent and that she had shown undue haste in appointing one H as the Chief Municipal Officer and compelled him to make various payments to the tune of Rs. 8,12,783/.An Order was passed by Chief Secretary, City Administration and Development Department, removing appellant from post of Chairman. Writ Petition and Writ Appeal thereagainst were Dismissed by Single judge and Division Bench.

        2. Present Special leave Petition has been filed against said order of Division Bench.

       Findings of the Court :

        State Government failed to appreciate that decisions for publication of advertisements, calling for tenders and payment of salaries were made by entire council and President. Appellant could not be singled out for those decisions taken by Council. High Court failed to appreciate that removal under Section 41-A of the Act could be resorted to only under grave and exceptional circumstances which were not present in the appellant’s case. No charge of causing financial loss to the Nagar Palika could be established by State Government.Advertisements, tenders calling for attending day-to-day work of the Municipality such as provision for drinking water, sanitation etc. were duly put out only after due deliberation by Council of Nagar Palika and no decision was taken by appellant herself. The materials placed by appellant before the State Government as well as before the High Court showed that tender had been put out after due deliberation by the Council and all works had been completed after satisfying the conditions prescribed therein. Single Judge as well as Division Bench not only failed to consider circumstances and the exigencies under which appellant was compelled to make the appointment of one H as Chief Municipal Officer and also ignored the fact that the appointment was actually made for payment of salaries and to make the payments to contractors who pressed for disbursement of the same to their workers. In the light of said conclusion and in absence of a finding that any loss was caused, the decision of State Government could not be sustained. Impugned order of State Government removing the appellant as President of the Nagar Palika, Zora, District Muraina under Section 41-A of the Act was set aside.

       Result : Appeal allowed.