The grounds for removal of an elected official must be justified under the relevant legal provisions, and removal should only be resorted to under grave and exceptional circumstances.

ORDER : – The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23-12-2020 passed by respondent No. 1 under section 41-A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 1961”) directing to remove the petitioner from the post of President of Alirajpur Municipality in respect of tenure between 2017-2022 on the ground that in her earlier tenure falling between 2012-2017 (6-8-2012 to 8-7-2017) there was an irregularity in an auction carried out by the Municipality, Alirajpur in respect of Shop No. 2, Bus Stand near Buniyadi Shala, Alirajpur and it was the responsibility of the petitioner who was then President under section 51 of the Act to watch over the financial and executive administration of the Council. The petitioner has been further disqualified from holding the office of President, Vice President or the Chairman as the case may be for the next term.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had contested and won the election for the post of President, Alirajpur Municipality in the year 2012 for the tenure falling between 2012-2017. It is submitted that Alirajpur Municipality is the owner of shop situated at Shop No. 2, Bus Stand near Buniyadi Shala, Alirajpur. The then Chief Municipal Officer, Alirajpur informed that the shop in question is lying vacant and in the year 2011 also the Municipality tried for auction but despite that there was no one to occupy the same and, therefore, the same was to be auctioned. The Chief Municipal Officer has put the shop in question to auction on right to occupancy (for business) basis and an auction notice was issued in the daily newspaper in the year 2016. Thereafter the Chief Municipal Officer had conducted an auction and the shop was allotted to the highest bidder for Rupees Nine lakhs. The tenure of the petitioner as the President of Alirajpur Municipality has concluded in the year 2017 and a fresh election was conducted in respect of the same Municipality by the State. The petitioner had again contested the election for the post of President, Alirajpur Municipality held in the year 2017 and won the election and became the President of Alirajpur Municipality for the period falling between 2017-2022. The respondents had initiated a departmental enquiry against the then Chief Municipal Officer, Alirajpur for some alleged irregularities committed by him for auctioning the shop in question in the year 2016 and has issued a charge-sheet to him. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was held responsible for the aforesaid irregularities and has failed to discharge duties cast on him under section 92 of the Act, 1961 and Rules made under the Act, 1961 and has passed an order of punishment against the then Chief Municipal Officer and withheld two increments without cumulative effect and for the loss caused to the Municipality an amount of Rupees Ten lakh was ordered to be recovered from him. The said order was passed on 27-5-2020. After passing of the said order, the respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice on 29-7-2020 alleging the same charges against the petitioner and stated that the petitioner has acted in contravention of the provisions of Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Achal Sampati Ke Antaran) Niyam, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “Niyam 1996”) and section 51(b) of the Act, 1961 which is amounting to misconduct and, therefore, the State Government has taken a decision for initiating action against the petitioner under section 41-A of the Act, 1961. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the said show cause notice and categorically stated that the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner were the duties of the Chief Municipal Officer under the Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder and the petitioner being President is not responsible for the alleged irregularities. It was further stated that the petitioner has not acted in contravention to the provisions of Rule 7