1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 23.8.2017 (Annexure P-5) whereby the State Government has invoked section 41A of the M.P. Municipality Act, 1961and removed the petitioner from the post of President, Municipal Council, Nagar Parishad, Semaria. In addition, the petitioner was declared as disqualified to hold the post of President till the next term.

2. The admitted facts between the parties are that a show cause notice dated 14.3.2017 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his detailed reply. An inquiry was conducted and thereafter the impugned order dated 23.8.2017 (Annexure P-5) was passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order by contending that the impugned order is politically motivated. The impugned action is triggered because of complaint of respondent No. 5 dated 23.4.2016 (Annexure P-2). The respondent No. 5 belongs to a different political party and, therefore, cognizance was taken. The Joint Director, Urban Administration conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted his report (Annexure P-3). Most of the allegations mentioned against the petitioner were not found proved. Yet ,mechanically the show cause notice dated 14.3.,2017 (Annexure R-2) (with return of respondent No.5) was issued. The petitioner denied the allegations and explained his conduct in great detail.

4. Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law because (a) as per the show-cause notice, the allegations against the petitioner are relating to purchase of hand pump and water supply material without obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The allegations are also made about purchase of sanitary material beyond the limit and without obtaining the sanction. It is submitted that a conjoint reading of rules 130, 131 and 132 of the M.P. Municipal Accounts Rules, 1971 makes it clear that the said provisions are applicable only in relation to construction of work or about addition and improvement of the construction work. As per the face value of the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice, there is no allegations relating to construction work and, therefore, there exists no violation of the Accounts Rules. For the same purpose, reliance is placed on the circular dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure P-9). To elaborate, it is argued that this circular is also related to construction work whereas in the show cause notice there was no allegations relating to construction work. (b) The allegations in the show cause notice and findings in the final order are different. (c) The decisions regarding purchase were taken jointly by the competent forum/council. Resolution (Annexure P-10) shows the said joint decision. For this joint decision taken, the petitioner cannot be singularly punished. Reliance is placed on 2010(2) JLJ 242 = (2010)2 SCC 319 [Sharda Kailash Mittal v. The State of M.P. and others]. (d) Removal from the present post is arbitrary exercise of power and it totally uncalled for and unwarranted. It cannot be said that petitioner’s conduct was against the public interest or against the interest of council and alleged irregularities were so high or of serious nature because of which his continuance as President became totally undesirable. Reliance is placed on 2003(4) MPLJ 28 [Rajeev Sharma v. State of M.P. and others]. It is further argued that the order regarding removal of President can be subject matter of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Another judgment reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 186 [Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and others] is relied upon to contend that the reasons were not so serious which can result into removal of an elected president.

5. Shri Ghildiyal further contended that when the language of statute is plain and unambiguous, its literal meaning must be seen. Rules 131, 132 and 133 of Account Rules, in no uncertain terms, m