A full-fledged inquiry is mandatory when an elected representative denies allegations against their conduct, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice as outlined in statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated October 29, 2025 passed by State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow by means of which petitioner has been removed from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhinga, District Shravasti. The petitioner in furtherance prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue discharging his duties.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the present writ petition is delineated below:

a. The petitioner was elected as the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhinga, District Shravasti in the Local Bodies Election held in the year 2023 and took oath on May 26, 2023.

b. Three complaints dated August 22, 2024, December 11, 2024 and January 29, 2025 were lodged against the petitioner alleging charges of corruption and financial misuse of power.

c. State Government (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no. 1’) vide order dated November 5, 2024 directed District Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no. 2’) to inquire into the allegation levelled in the complaint dated August 22, 2024 and accordingly constituted a two-member committee to inquire into the allegation and submit a report.

d. Moreover, in pursuance of complaint dated December 11, 2024, respondent no.1 vide order dated January 30, 2025 directed respondent no. 2 to inquire into the allegation levelled in the complaint and submit a report and respondent no. 2 consequently constituted a three-member committee to inquire into allegation levelled in the complaint.

e. After conducting inquiry, the two-member committee submitted its report on March 3, 2025 with regard to complaint dated August 22, 2024 and the three-member committee submitted its report on March 4, 2025 with regard to complaint dated December 11, 2024 respectively wherein the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct as per Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipality Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1916’).

f. With regard to the complaint dated January 29, 2025 against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was awarding the contracts only to his known contractors for commissioning work in the local area. Respondent no. 2 constituted a three- member committee to inquire into the allegation. Thereafter, Additional District Magistrate wrote a letter dated January 29, 2025 to petitioner to submit his reply. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply on February 7, 2025 through registered post, denying all allegations levelled in the complaint dated January 29, 2025.

g. The three-member committee so constituted to inquire into the complaint dated January 29, 2025 submitted its report on February 13, 2025 wherein the allegations levelled against the petitioner was found to be veracious after the statement of the petitioner got recorded by Additional District Magistrate on February 10, 2025 and the said report was also forwarded to the State government.

h. Respondent no. 2 submitted a report dated May 2, 2025 through which petitioner was found prime facie guilty in contravention of Section 48 of the Act, 1916.

i. On the basis of three inquiry reports dated February 13, 2025, March 3, 2025 and March 4, 2025, a Show-cause notice dated May 21, 2025 was issued to the petitioner wherein 15 days’ time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the petitioner had approv