Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Petitioner, an elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, has approached this Court challenging the show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 1 dated 15.10.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 48 (2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as to why she may not be removed from the elected post. The financial and administrative powers were also ceased during the pendency of the proceedings for removal.

2. We have heard Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by S/Shri Y.K. Srivastava and R.N. Pandey for the State respondents.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have proceeded to hear the petition on merits and decide the same at this stage.

4. Undisputed facts are as follows.

5. Certain complaints were made against the petitioner alleging irregularities in grant of contractual work by Nagar Panchayat resulting into financial loss, which were inquired into through a committee consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naugarh and Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D., Siddharth Nagar, which submitted a report dated 7.2.2015, whereupon the District Magistrate forwarded the same to the State Government. An explanation was called from the petitioner vide notice dated 23.3.2015. After the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 16.4.2015, respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 15.10.2015 requiring her to show-cause within a period of 15 days as to why she should not be removed from the post of Chairman, Nagar Panchayat. The financial and administrative powers during the pendency of the proceedings were ceased.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been total non-application of mind by the State Government to the explanation dated 16.4.2015 submitted by the petitioner, inasmuch as the show-cause notice does not record any reason as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Total non-application of mind and non-consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner vitiates the order ceasing financial and administrative powers. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner after she submitted her explanation and, thus, cessation of financial and administrative power is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

7. In reply, learned Additional Advocate General submits that an enquiry was instituted into the charges levelled against the petitioner, which was conducted by a committee constituted by Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D., who submitted their report dated 7.2.2015. The copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to the petitioner alongwith the notice calling upon her to submit her explanation. The entire matter was forwarded to the State Government, after being satisfied that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of the charges levelled, issued a show-cause notice calling for her explanation as to why she should not be removed from the elected post and since the charges were serious and grave in nature, her financial and administrative power shall remain ceased during the pendency of the proceedings.

8. The State Government is empowered to remove an elected President of a municipality in exercise of powers conferred by Section 48 (2) of the Act. The said section reads as under.

“48. Removal of President.—(1) ...... [omitted]

(2) 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) the President has-

(i) incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12-D and 43-AA; or

(ii) within the meaning of Section 82 knowingly acquired or continued to have, directly or indirectly or by a partner, any share or i