Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3673
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
V.K. Shukla; Acting Chief Justice, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.
Diksha Gangwar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 Ors. - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 30323 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2016
For the Petitioner:- Sharad Sharma,Vikrant Pandey
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.
The removal of an elected official from office must be done in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the charges against the official must be specific and definite. The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Headnote:
MUNICIPALITIES - REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT - PROCEDURE - ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VAGUE AND EVASIVE CHARGES - UNWARRANTED AND SCANDALOUS MANNER - DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT - WRIT PETITION - ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected Chairperson of Nagar Palika Parishad, was removed from office by the State Government on the basis of three vague and evasive charges. The petitioner challenged the removal order, alleging that the enquiry was conducted in a biased and arbitrary manner, and that the charges were not substantiated by any cogent evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, that the charges were not specific and definite, and that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Court also found that the State Government had acted with mala fide intention and had abused its power.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner? 2. Whether the charges against the petitioner were specific and definite? 3. Whether the punishment of removal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct? 4. Whether the State Government had acted with mala fide intention and had abused its power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner, as the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend herself and the charges against her were not specific and definite. 2. The Court held that the charges against the petitioner were not specific and definite, as they did not provide her with sufficient information about the alleged misconduct. 3. The Court held that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, as the petitioner had not been found guilty of any serious misconduct. 4. The Court held that the State Government had acted with mala fide intention and had abused its power, as it had removed the petitioner from office for political reasons.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the removal order. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated to her post as Chairperson of Nagar Palika Parishad.
V.K. Shukla; Acting Chief Justice and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General, U.P. assisted by Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. In this writ petition, the following principal reliefs have been claimed: -
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the order dated 23.6.2016 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 48 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, removing the petitioner as President from the Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, Rampur (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to work as the President of Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, Rampur without any interference by the authorities concerned."
3. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner is the elected Chairman/Adhyaksh of Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, District Rampur. In the year 2004 she was elected to the office of Adhyaksha of the Nagar Palika Parishad and there was a government of the ruling Samajwadi Party in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that she was pressurised to take shelter of the ruling party. When she did not succumb to the pressure of the ruling party, she was implicated in a false case and a first information report dated 25.1.2004 was lodged against her at Police Station Milak, District Rampur under Section 409 IPC and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Milak, Rampur. In the said case, the police had submitted final report dated 24.11.2004, which was accepted by the Judge (Anti Corruption) Bareilly on 1.9.2008. Again, when the petitioner was elected as Chairperson of the Nagar Palika Parishad, another first information report dated 19.7.2012 was lodged against her by the then Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad and the case was registered as Case Crime No.728 of 2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC at Police Station Milak, District Rampur. In the aforesaid case she was sent to jail and subsequently she was granted bail. At present, the said case is pending against the petitioner before the competent court and the trial is going on.
4. Again when the petitioner has been elected for the third time as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, she was again subjected to face the arbitrariness of the administrative officers and the lock was put on doors of the office of Nagar Palika Parishad in question and before this locking in the evening the Executive Officer was beaten brutally by the members of the ruling party and he was implicated in a case and was sent to jail. Being aggrieved with such action the petitioner filed a Writ C No.13789 of 2015 wherein this Court vide order dated 19.3.2015 passed an interim order with following effect: -
"District Magistrate, Rampur must ensure that if the lock has been put in the office of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Milak Rampur, then the lock is removed positively by tomorrow i.e. 20th March, 2015. The office of the Parishad must be opened, failing which the District Magistrate shall remain present before this Court to disclose as to how can the local body office be locked, whatever may be the irregularities/illegalities committed by the officer manning the office.
Put up tomorrow i.e. 20th March, 2015."
5. Meanwhile the respondents on the basis of some frivolous complaint proceeded in the matter on the dictate of District Magistrate, Rampur and State Government and frivolous report was prepared by despondent no.3 and the same was forwarded to respondent no.1 on 21.2.2015. Consequently show cause notice was given to her and finally her financial and administrative powers were ceased. She assailed such action in Writ C No.15467 of 2015 challenging the order dated 12.3.2015 wherein this Court vide order
