Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. D. AGARWALA, M. KATJU
SURINDER PRAKASH GOEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 24312 Of 1991
Decided On : 08/12/1992
MUNICIPALITIES - REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT - U. P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1916 - SECTION 48(2) - PRESIDENT OF MUNICIPAL BOARD REMOVED FROM OFFICE - CHALLENGE - VALIDITY OF REMOVAL ORDER - CONSIDERATION OF EXPLANATION - NECESSITY - REASONS FOR REJECTION OF EXPLANATION - REQUIREMENT - ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, President of the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad, was removed from office by the State Government under Section 48(2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The removal was based on a report of an enquiry conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Ghaziabad, which found the petitioner guilty of various charges of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the removal order, contending that it was arbitrary and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the removal order was illegal on several grounds. Firstly, the State Government had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation to the charges against him, as required by Section 48(2a) of the Act. Secondly, the removal order contained findings on matters for which there was no charge against the petitioner. Thirdly, the removal order was arbitrary as it did not deal properly with the petitioner's explanation and did not give proper reasons for rejecting it. Fourthly, the petitioner could not be removed for technical irregularities without any financial or other benefit.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government considered the petitioner's explanation to the charges against him as required by Section 48(2a) of the Act? 2. Whether the removal order contained findings on matters for which there was no charge against the petitioner? 3. Whether the removal order was arbitrary as it did not deal properly with the petitioner's explanation and did not give proper reasons for rejecting it? 4. Whether the petitioner could be removed for technical irregularities without any financial or other benefit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation to the charges against him, as required by Section 48(2a) of the Act. The Court observed that the State Government had ignored the report of an enquiry conducted by the Officer-in-Charge, Local Bodies, Ghaziabad, which found the petitioner to be innocent. The Court also noted that the State Government had not given any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation. 2. The Court held that the removal order contained findings on matters for which there was no charge against the petitioner. The Court observed that the removal order had introduced new charges against the petitioner which were not mentioned in the show cause notice issued to him. 3. The Court held that the removal order was arbitrary as it did not deal properly with the petitioner's explanation and did not give proper reasons for rejecting it. The Court observed that the State Government had dealt with the petitioner's explanation in a very perfunctory manner and had not given any proper reasons for rejecting it. 4. The Court held that the petitioner could not be removed for technical irregularities without any financial or other benefit. The Court observed that the proviso to Section 48(2-A) of the Act gave the State Government the option to either remove the President or to give him a warning, and that it was not necessary to remove the President in every case where some misconduct was found proved against him.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the removal order. The petitioner was allowed to function as President of the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was elected President of Municipal Board, Ghaizabad in February, 1989. He belongs to the Congress-I party and it is alleged that ever since he assumed office attempts have been made by members of other parties to remove him from the office of President. It is alleged that one Sri K. C. Tyagi, Member of Parliament, who belongs to the Janta Dal and had animosity against the petitioner, made repeated efforts to dislodge the petitioner from office. Hence he initiated a no-confidence motion against him, but it failed. Thereafter Sri. Tyagi wrote a letter to the then Chief Minister, Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, true Copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. On the basis of this letter, the Chief Minister directed the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to hold an enquiry and the Commissioner appointed the Additional District Magistrate (City), Ghaziabad to hold an enquiry who held an enquiry and found the petitioner to be innocent. True copy of the report of the Addl. District Magistrate is Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the State Government issued notice under S. 48 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). True copy of the show cause notice dated 20-3-91 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By this notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the President. The charges in the notice have been summarised in para 12 of the writ petition and hence they need not be repeated. The petitioner gave a reply dated 8-5-1991. In the meantime the petitioner was suspended on 4-5-1991 against which he filed Writ Petition No. 15567 of 1991, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-5-1991. Against, this judgment relating to the petitioners suspension he filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 9-7-1991 with the observation that the State Government will not be influenced by the observations made in the judgment of this Court dated 21-5-1991.
( 3 ) IN paragraphs 17 to 51 of the writ petition the petitioner has given in detail his reply to the charges which were levied against him. A true copy of the reply dated 8-5-1991 is Annexure 17. In paragraph 56 of the writ petition it is alleged that the statement did not consider the petitioners reply to the show cause notice or the documents which he annexed along with the said reply and instead by an order dated 5-9-1991, the State Government removed the petitioner from office of the President. True copy of the impugned order dated 5-9-1991 is Annexure 18. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
( 4 ) WE have heard Sri R. H. Zaidi and Sri S. K. Garg for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi for the respondent No. 3 and we have also heard the learned Additional Advocate-General, for the respondent No. 2 and we are disposing of the writ petition finally.
( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the City Board, Ghaziabad. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that enquiries had been held against the petitioner into the charges levelled against him and he manipulated the initial enquiry by Sri M. M. Mishra in his favour, but ultimately the report of the Addl. District Magistrate (City) Sri Tej Pal Singh found all the charges proved against the petitioner and he was issued a show cause notice and placed under suspension and ultimately removed from the office of President. It is alleged that it is the report of the Addl. District Magistrate (City) Sri Tej Pal Singh which is the basis for suspension as also the removal. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and the petitioner has suppressed the report of Sri Tej Pal Singh, Addl. District Magistrate (City) which fully establishes the charges against him. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the counter-affidavit is a reply to the factual allegations in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
