JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged her removal from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Bareilly by the order of respondent no. 1, i.e. Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas, U.P. Lucknow dated 10.5.2022 and the report of District Magistrate, Bareilly dated 6.1.2022. She has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit her to discharge her duties as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Bareilly.

2. The petitioner was elected as President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Bareilly on 1.12.2017. A show cause notice dated 17.7.2019 was issued to her by respondent no. 1, seeking her explanation in relation to alleged wrongful withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 47,31,035/-, out of Rs. 52,40,554/-, from the funds provided by the State Finance Commission Grants. It was alleged that at the relevant time, no Executive Officer was working in the Nagar Palika and therefore, the withdrawal of the amount, amounts to a financial irregularity. It was also alleged that as a result, the safai karmees could not get their salary during Holi festival. The petitioner was called upon to reply to the said notice within seven days, along with the evidence, otherwise, proceedings for her removal would be initiated. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 27.07.2019 stating that the amount was used towards payment of arrears of salary to the employees of the Municipality and the development works executed by different firms. All the payments were made by account payee cheques. At the relevant time, Gulshan Kumar Suri was working as Executive Officer and the payments were made under the joint signatures of the petitioner and the said Executive Officer. The petitioner annexed the bank statements to prove her contention.

3. On 17.8.2019, the District Magistrate sent a communication to the State Government, mentioning various charges of misconduct on part of the petitioner and recommended for seizing her financial and administrative powers. On 18.8.2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 1, requiring her to submit her explanation within seven days, failing which, proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act would be initiated against her. By same notice, respondent no. 1, exercising power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 48 ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice/order seizing her financial and administrative powers by filing a writ petition[Writ – C No. 28121 of 2019] before this Court. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 24.9.2019, staying the operation of the order dated 18.8.2019, seizing the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner, while permitting enquiry in relation to removal to be concluded without being influenced by the pendency of the writ petition.

5. On 9.09.2019, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2019 and categorically denied the charges levelled against her. The receipt of reply of the petitioner dated 9.09.2019 (19.09.2019) to the show cause notice dated 17.7.2019 is admitted. In reply to the first charge, the petitioner reiterated the stand taken by her in her reply dated 17.7.2019.

6. In respect of the second charge, the petitioner took a specific stand that keeping in mind the G.O. dated 12.7.2010, the payments were made on priority basis to the regular and contractual employees by issuing cheques on 31.12.2018. Cheques were encashed by the payee as per their convenience, in some case in the month of February, 2019. The petitioner stated that she had supplied salary details along with her previous reply. However, no enquiry was held on the said issue. The petitioner also specifically denied the charge that the salary of employees was diverted to contractors. She also stated that one regular employee Sant Ram retired on 31.12.2018 and an account payee cheque was issued to clear h