The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirement of recording reasons in decisions under the U. P. Municipalities Act.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to an order of the State Government dated 3. 4. 2000 passed under Section 48 (2a) of U. P. Municipalities Act, removing the petitioner from the office of President of Municipal Board, Bharatganj, district Allahabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected as President of Municipal Board, Bharatganj. A motion of no-confidence was brought against her on which the District Magistrate by his order dated 29. 10. 1999 fixed 15. 11. 1999 as the date for consideration of the motion but the same was defeated. The State Government also initiated steps to remove the petitioner from the office of president and accordingly, served a notice upon her on 13. 7. 1999 requiring her to show cause why she should not be removed from the said office under Section 48 (2a) of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner gave a reply to the notice on 16. 8. 1999. Thereafter, the State government passed the impugned order on 3. 4. 2000 removing the petitioner from the office of president of Municipal Board, Bharatganj. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

( 3 ) SRI M. B. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that certain material was relied upon by the State Government but the copy of the same was not furnished to the petitioner, which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. He has also submitted that no reasons have been recorded by the State Government while passing the impugned order, which was necessary under sub-section (2a) of Section 48 of the Act, and, therefore, there has been non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Learned standing counsel, who has appeared for respondents No. 1 to 5 has, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was aware of all the material which had been considered by the State government, and, as such, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that though detailed reasons may not be there but the impugned order contains some reasons and, therefore, the requirement of sub-section (2a) of Section 48 has been met and the order removing the petitioner from the office of President of Municipal Board cannot be faulted on that ground.

( 4 ) THE show cause notice dated 13. 7. 1999 contains ten charges. However, in the impugned order, reference has been made to six charges only and, therefore, we will confine our discussion to those charges alone. The first charge is that payment of salary to safai workers had not been made through bank but had been made in cash and while doing so, some amount was deducted. The second charge is that the contract for realising Tehbazari for the year 1997-98 was given to chaman Lal for a very low amount in an illegal manner due to which the Municipal Board suffered financial loss. The third charge is that one Ashiq Ali had deposited Rs. 5,000 as security while participating in the auction held for settling the right of collection of Tehbazari for the year 1995-96 but the said security amount had not been refunded to him due to which a financial irregularity had been committed. The fourth charge is that a sum of Rs. 500 had been deposited through treasury challan for renewal of 1,000 ration cards but in fact an amount of Rs. 2 had been realised from each ration card holder. The fifth charge is that certain appointments had been made on daily wage basis for which prior approval had not been taken. The sixth charge is that a sum of Rs. 10,000 had been realised from each of the safai workers who had been made permanent.

( 5 ) THE petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice on 17. 7. 1999 and the copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In the reply, the petitioner specifically denied all the charges levelled against her. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, the specific case of the petitioner was that payment of salary to the safai workers had be