Back
2025 Supreme(All) 4016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SIDDHARTH NANDAN, JJ.
Rajuddin - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 43225 of 2025
Decided On : 15-12-2025
For the Petitioner:G.S. Chauhan, Ram Raj Pandey, Sr. Advocate, Vishakha Pande.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
An order of removal from elected office violates natural justice if the authority passing the final decision did not personally conduct the hearing and failed to record independent, reasoned findings, instead merely reproducing findings of subordinate officers without personal application of mind.
Headnote:(A) Municipalities Act, 1916 - Section 48 - Removal of elected office bearer - Requirements of natural justice - Order of removal passed by an authority who did not conduct the hearing - Mandatory requirement of independent application of mind by authority - Necessity of recording reasons in writing while passing such order. (Paras 6, 8, 11, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of a speaking order - The authority exercising quasi-judicial power must not merely reproduce comments of subordinates, but must demonstrate personal application of mind - The decision-making process is fundamentally flawed if the authority passing the order has not personally heard the affected party. (Paras 3, 4, 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order removing them from the post of an elected head of a local self-government body. It was contended that the order was passed in gross violation of natural justice, as the official who heard the matter was transferred, and the successor passed the impugned order without fixing any date for a fresh hearing or providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the final order merely reproduced the comments and findings of subordinate officers without any independent application of mind.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the authority passing the order of removal did not conduct the hearing of the affected party, thereby frustrating the core requirement of natural justice. Additionally, the final order failed to record an independent finding or reasoning, acting as a mere reproduction of comments previously submitted, thus rendering the decision arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the removal of an elected representative without a fresh hearing by the deciding authority and without an independent application of mind constitutes a violation of natural justice and the requirements of the governing statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when a statute necessitates an inquiry and the recording of reasons for removal, it is mandatory for the deciding authority to exercise independent application of mind and perform the hearing personally. An order that fails to reflect subjective satisfaction and relies solely on the verbatim reproduction of subordinate reports is invalid. Furthermore, the principle of natural justice requires that the individual passing a final order entailing civil consequences must provide an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order of removal quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court establishes the nature of the petition and the challenged administrative removal order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of procedural unfairness including mechanical pass-through of administrative comments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirement of a mandatory, reasoned inquiry under section 48 prior to removal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. violation of natural justice when the deciding officer differs from the hearing officer. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. quashing of the illicit administrative order with liberty for fresh proceedings. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh and Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Ram Raj Pandey, advocate for the petitioner, Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.4.
2. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 27.11.2025 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), removing the petitioner from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Baghpat, District Baghpat. The order has been passed by Shri Guru Prasad Parole, Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-2 acting on behalf of the State Government.
3. The main challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that it has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 17.07.2023 to the show cause notice dated 03.07.2023. On 30.05.2025, the hearing was adjourned to 09.06.2025. At the relevant time, Shri Amrit Abhijat was the Secretary of the concerned department and the hearing supposedly took place before him. He was transferred on 19.09.2025, thereafter, Shri Guru Prasad Parole assumed charge of Principal Secretary and he without fixing any date for hearing has passed the impugned order. It is further contended that in the impugned order there is no independent application of mind by the State Government. The petitioner in his explanation rebutted each and every allegation/charge levelled against him, however, the State Government has not given any independent finding or reasoning for not accepting the explanation except for reproducing the comments of A.D.M. as forwarded to the State Government vide covering letter dated 15.04.2025 behind the back of the petitioner.
4. We have gone through the findings recorded in the impugned order and have tallied the findings recorded therein with the comments submitted by the A.D.M. We find that it is word by word reproduction of the comments of the A.D.M. dated 15.04.2025.
5. Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel after obtaining instructions on the aspect, as to whether, the impugned order has been passed by the same officer who held the hearing on 09.06.2025 or by a different officer, fairly concedes that he is a different officer. He states that after the hearing, the matter was placed before the Minister concerned for approval and in the meantime, Shri Amrit Abhijat got transferred. He also concedes that after Shri Guru Prasad Parole took charge, no hearing was held by him.
6. Section 48 of the Act provides for removal of the President of Municipality, who is head of local self government. He is an elected representative. The order of removal by the State Government entails very serious civil consequences.
7. This Court in Shaila Tahir vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.21595 of 2022) decided on 13.10.2022 held that sub section (2-A) of Section 48 of the Act which provides for consideration of the explanation that may be offered by the President and for making enquiry before removal continues in the statute and there was only a mistake committed by the legislature in numbering of the Sections while making amendments by the U.P. Municipalities Amendment Act, 2004. It has been observed as follows:
24. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 contemplates making of such inquiry as may be con
