JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner wants that the order dated 10th March, 1967 removing him from the Presidentship of the Municipal Board, Auraiya, district Etawah under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act be quashed.

2. The material portion of the order runs as follows: -

"I am directed to say that your explanation dated June 21, 1966, to the charge-sheet issued with G.O. No. 17701XI-A8281 1965, dated June 4, 1966 has been considered by Government and has been found unsatisfactory. You have failed in the performance of your duties and have been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of your duties. The Governor has, therefore, been pleased to remove you from the Presidentship of the Municipal Board, Auraiya, (District Etawah) with immediate effect under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, (U.P. Act No. II of 1916) ".

3. One of the points raised by the petitioner is that the order contravenes the ex-press provisions of Section 48 by not stating the reasons for the action taken and mentioned in it. Sub-sec. (2-A) of Section 48 states: -

" After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove The President from his office:"

Under sub-sec. (2-B) of Section 48 the order passed by the State Government under sub-sec. (2-A) is final and cannot be questioned in any court. An order under sub-sec. (2-A) can be passed on any one of the grounds mentioned in sub-sec. (2-A) . A charge-sheet containing many charges was served upon the petitioner. The charge-sheet sought to bring the case within clause (A) as well as (B) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 48. Clause (B) itself contains eight sub-clauses giving various grounds upon which a President can be proceeded against. The petitioner had seriously disputed the correctness and validity of the charges and had filed an elaborate explanation. It is undeniable that many points of substance arose for consideration and determination by the State Government. The impugned order mentioned above only states that the .explanation has been found unsatisfactory. That, in my opinion, is not recording the reasons for the action of removing the petitioner. It is a statement of the conclusion reached by the State Government after a perusal of the petitioner's explanation.

Sub-sec. (4) of Section 40 of the Municipalities Act entitles the State Government to remove a member of a Municipal Board and when such action is taken, "reasons therefore shall be placed on record".

4. This provision was considered by this Court in the-case of Abdul Rashid Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961 ALJ 467. It was held that that phrase only meant that the order by which a member was removed has to be self contained and should itself state the reasons for the action of removal. The provision was held mandatory and its violation would make the order void.

The same provision came up for interpretation in Mahboob v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ No. 4003 of 1966, decided on 3rd May 1967 by Mr. Justice Satish Chandra, wherein the decision in Abdul Rashid Khan's' use was followed. It was further pointed out that there was a well known distinction between stating the conclusion and stating the reasons for it. it was observed: -

"For the respondents it was, however, urged that the impugned order does not state the reasons. The ultimate finding was that the petitioner was unfit to continue as a member. This was based on the ground that the petitioner's explanation was found unsatisfactory and that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and of causing loss to the funds of the Municipal Board. These were the grounds on which the finding is based. I am unable to agree. The Supreme Court in Collector of Manghyr v. Keshav Prasad, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1694 emphasised in paragraph 15.

"There are two matters, which though somewhat inter-re