The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government must conduct a full-fledged enquiry as required under Section 48 (2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 before removing the President from office.

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The moot question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the removal of the petitioner as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh was in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 (2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

2. A President is elected by an electorate, but he may be removed from office by the State Government on charges specified in Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

3. The relevant provisions of Section 48 of the Act reads as under :

"48. Removal of President.—Where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that—

(a) there has been a failure on the part of the President in performing his duties, or

(b) ........................................

(viii) been guilty of any other misconduct whether committed before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self-Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, whether as President or as Vice-President, exercising the powers of President, or as Vice-President, or as member ; or

(ix) caused loss or damage to any property of the Municipality ; or

(x) misappropriated or misused Municipal fund ; or

(xi) acted against the interest of the Municipality ; or

(xii) contravened the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder ; or

(xiii) created an obstacle in a meeting of the Municipality in such manner that it becomes impossible for the Municipality to conduct its business in the meeting or instigated someone to do so ; or

(xiv) wilfully contravened any order or direction of the State Government given under this Act ; or

(xv) misbehaved without any lawful justification with the officers or employees of the Municipality ; or

(xvi) disposed of any property belonging to the Municipality at a price less than its market value ; or

(xvii) encroached, or assisted or instigated any other person to encroach upon the land, building or any other immovable property of the Municipality ;

it may call upon him to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office.

(2A) After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office."

4. A perusal of Section 48 of the Act indicates that the State Government may issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from the post of President. Section 48 (2A) contemplates that the State Government before removing the President from his office is required to :

"(1) to consider the explanation offered by the President ;

(2) to conduct an enquiry ; and

(3) to record the reasons in writing regarding removal of the President from his office."

as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Nasimuddin v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (3) AWC 1803 (LB) : 2000 (3) ESC 1611.

5. Similar view was also made in Hazi Islam v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (2) ESC 1055, holding :

"Sub-section (2A) requires recording of reasons and holding of enquiry and consideration of explanation. Therefore, before passing the order of the removal of a President, the State Government has to comply with three conditions. Firstly, consider the explanation offered by the President, secondly, hold enquiry and lastly, record reasons in the order of removal from the office of the President."

6. In Umesh Baijal and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (2) AWC 1757 : 2004 (55) ALR 188, it was held :

"Sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act, 1916, provides for a procedure of removal stipulating that after considering any 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, remove him. The law does not permit or give unfettered powers to the State Government for passing an orde