Removal of an elected representative requires proof of willful misconduct and adherence to principles of natural justice, not just allegations of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of removal directed vide notification dated 28^th January, 2025 as at Annexure-1 by opposite party No.2 against her from the post of Chairperson, Deogarh Municipality and consequential order i.e. Annexure-2 of opposite party No.2 appointing opposite party No.5 in that post and furthermore, to issue directions to the opposite parties to allow her continuation in such capacity for the remainder of the tenure on the grounds inter alia that such decision is grossly illegal and bad in law and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with and quashed in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner was elected Chairperson of the Municipality and she was removed by the Government vide Annexure-1. According to the petitioner, the impugned decision of opposite party No.2 is beyond jurisdiction and uncanny haste was demonstrated by opposite party No.3 in appointing opposite party No.5 in that post under Annexure-2. The contention is that the removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairperson of the Municipality is outrightly an act of arbitrariness, not in accordance with law and hence, illegal. It is pleaded on record that the petitioner contested the election held in the year, 2022 being a candidate of Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and was elected directly as the Chairperson of the Municipality and out of the elected councilors, opposite party No.5 was picked up as the Vice-Chairperson, who was one among them contested as a Councilor sponsored by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The petitioner claims that while discharging her statutory functions with sincerity and diligence since assuming of office as Chairperson of the Municipality, to her shock and utter dismay, was served with a show cause notice dated 11^th November, 2024 by opposite party No.2 issued under Section 53 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said notice was served on the petitioner on 18^th November, 2024 with intimation to reply to the same within 21 days, as to why, she shall not be removed from the post of Chairperson of the Municipality on the charges levelled and for having failed to discharge the duties assigned and having acted illegally in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. In response to the show cause notice as at Annexure-3, according to the petitioner, the reply was submitted. The petitioner alleges that Annexure-3 revealed a special inquiry held at the behest of opposite party No.2 on allegations, such as, failure to convene the required number of meetings of the Municipal Council; allowing execution of works without approval of the Council; and permitting successful bidders of contracts to deposit the bid amount in installments etc. It is further alleged that on the basis of such a unilateral inquiry, the show cause notice as per Annexure-3 was issued and it smacked of a pre-meditated approach to illegally remove the petitioner from a democratically elected post. The contention is that on a cursory perusal of the notice, it is amply made clear that the Authority concerned had already formed an opinion that the continuance of the petitioner would be detrimental to the interest of the inhabitants of the Municipality. It is claimed by the petitioner that the special inquiry report and a copy of the same were never served on her and she was unaware of the materials collected during the inquiry held clandestinely. The further contention is that the charges levelled against the petitioner by itself not sufficient to remove her from the post of Chairperson of t