2021 Supreme(All) 189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pankaj Naqvi, Piyush Agrawal,JJ.
Jagdish Prasad Gupta - Petitioner
versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 22742 of 2020
Decided On : 19.1.2021

Point of law: power is conferred upon the State Government to cease the administrative/financial power under section 48(2) of the Act and the requirement of law is that the person concerned must be confronted with show cause containing charges, so as to enable him to respond. It is only after receipt of the reply that State Government can pass an order ceasing the administrative/financial power of the Chairman. The object of this provision is only to enable the State Government to take a decision on the available materials as to whether facts of the case warrant urgent invocation of ceasing of administrative/financial power

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 – Section 48 – Non-application of mind – Petitioner was elected as Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda – A complaint was made against the petitioner and Executive Officer of the Parishad, alleging irregularities and defalcation of accounts before the District Magistrate, Banda/respondent no. 3, who forwarded the same to the Commissioner of the Division/respondent no. 2. – Commissioner constituted a three-member Committee to inquire into the allegations. – Committee comprised of Assistant Accounts Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar and Joint Development Commissioner. – Committee submitted its report to the Commissioner. – It appears that in the meanwhile, another complaint was preferred against the petitioner before the Commissioner, who took cognizance of the same and referred the same to a single member committee, comprising of Joint Development Commissioner, who was the Chairman of the earlier Committee. – Joint Development Commissioner submitted a report (second report) on 15 charges to the Commissioner and the latter forwarded the same to the State Government vide letter – State Government acting under section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 issued a show cause on 9 charges, served on the petitioner – The petitioner submitted his reply – State Government under section 48(2) of the Act, after consideration of the reply, proceeded to cease the administrative/financial power of the petitioner and a consequential order by the District Magistrate appointing Deputy Collector as administrator in the Parishad.

Finding of the court: Perusal of the above legal position would indicate that a power is conferred upon the State Government to cease the administrative/financial power under section 48(2) of the Act and the requirement of law is that the person concerned must be confronted with show cause containing charges, so as to enable him to respond. – It is only after receipt of the reply that State Government can pass an order ceasing the administrative/financial power of the Chairman. – Object of this provision is only to enable the State Government to take a decision on the available materials as to whether facts of the case warrant urgent invocation of ceasing of administrative/financial power. – At this stage, the State Government is to only prima facie record its satisfaction as to whether administrative/financial power is to be ceased or not. – In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that he was not permitted to participate before the inquiry committee is of no avail. – Court carefully examined the contents of both the reports, the show cause and the impugned order and find no merit in the second contention. – The reason is that the first report alleged five charges and the second report alleged 15 charges. – To recapitulate the report is by a three-member committee, of which Joint Development Commissioner was the Chairman and the second report is by a single-member, i.e., the same Joint Development Commissioner. – The Joint Development Commissioner was fully aware of the contents of the first report as he was a Chairman and in the second report, there is a recital that same charges have already been inquired into the first report. – Thus, non-supply of the first report cannot be said to have occasioned any prejudice to the petitioner. – Commissioner was not obliged to send the first report (three member) to the State Government for the simple reason that the Joint Development Commissioner was the Chairman in both the Committees and while sending the second report, he was aware of contents of the first report. – Matter can be viewed from another perspective also. – Petitioner was put to show cause on certain charges to which he, admittedly, responded. – If the State has chosen not to rely on the first report, then how can the petitioner insist that show cause must be issued on the basis of first report? – Court, in view of above factual/legal position, are not impressed with the plea that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.

Result – Writ Petition Dismissed