The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conducting a full-fledged inquiry into the charges against an elected representative of the people and the emphasis on the principles of natural justice and the stringent procedure and standard of proof required for the removal of an elected official.

JUDGMENT :

Jayant Banerji, J.

1. Under challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 3.10.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P., Department of Urban Development, whereby, in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, [Act of 1916], the petitioner has been removed from the post of President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda, District Banda.

BACKGROUND

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case is that the petitioner contested the election held in the year 2017 for the office of the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda in which he was declared elected and he assumed his office on 12.12.2017. On complaints made against the petitioner, the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, directed an investigation and constituted a three member committee to conduct enquiry with regard to the contents in the complaint. An ex-parte enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee comprising of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Banda, the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Departments, Prantiya Khand, Banda which submitted its report dated 25/26.11.2020 before the respondent no. 2. The aforesaid inquiry report was forwarded by the respondent no. 2 along with its letter dated 17.12.2020 to the respondent no. 1, who issued a show cause notice dated 2.3.2021 to the petitioner under Section 48(2) of the Act of 1916 containing the same allegations which were subject matter of the complaint. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within a period of one month and to show cause why proceedings in terms of the provisions contained under Section 48(2) of the Act of 1916 be not drawn against him. A reply dated 7.5.2021 was submitted by the petitioner denying all charges levelled against him. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 forwarded the same to the respondent no. 2 for its comments. The respondent no. 2, by an order dated 6.7.2021, constituted a three member committee to submit its comments. The three members committee submitted its report dated 20.7.2021 which was forwarded by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1. By an order dated 25.8.2021, the respondent no. 1 ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad. On 25.8.2021 itself, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear on 9.9.2021 before an officer of the respondent no. 1 along with relevant documents. It was mentioned in the notice that in case on the appointed date and time, the petitioner does not appear, it would be assumed that he has nothing to say in his defense and a decision would be taken on merits.

3. Against the order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1, ceasing the administrative and financial power of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 23029 of 2021, [Writ Petition of 2021] (Mohan Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court which was allowed by a judgement dated 16.12.2021 after holding that there was no application of mind to the material placed on record by the petitioner in his reply and that the order was passed blindly relying upon the report of the District Magistrate which was not even furnished to the petitioner. After relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Vs. State of U.P., 2011 (3) ADJ 502, and Babita Kasudhan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (3) ADJ 585, it was held that the proceedings and the order of cessation of the financial and administrative powers of the President were arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 25.8.2021 was quashed leaving it open to the State Government to take a decision afresh in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter the petitioner was served a notice dated 11.4.2022 by the respondent no. 1 asking him to appear for personal hearing. Since the petitioner