ABDUL QADAR ELAHI BAKSH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the State Government (Respondent No. 1) dated 15th October 1959 whereby, in exercise of the powers under Section 20(1)(c) of the Bhopal State Town Area Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), the Petitioner was removed from the office of the President of the Town Area Committee, Ashta.

(2.) IN the year 1956, the Petitioner was duly elected to the office of the President of the Town Area Committee, Ashta, constituted under the Act and thereafter continued to function as such. It appears that there were several complaints against the Petitioner to the effect that he disregarded the provisions of the Act, contravened Nazul Rules and committed numerous other irregularities. A preliminary enquiry was also held to ascertain the truth of those complaints. Thereupon, on 20th December 1958, the Collector of Sehore (Respondent No. 2) served upon the Petitioner a charge -sheet framed by the State Government specifying twenty charges and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the President. The Collector further required the Petitioner to submit his reply within 15 days and also enquired whether he wanted an oral enquiry, wished to be heard in person and desired to give lists of witnesses and documents to be produced in support of his defence (Annexure 1). On 1st February 1959, the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to each of the twenty charges, stated that he wanted an oral enquiry and a personal bearing and also gave his lists of witnesses and documents (Annexure 2). Thereupon, without holding any oral enquiry or without giving to the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, the State Government passed the impugned order (Annexure 3).

(3.) IN answer the Respondents stated that, in the preliminary enquiry held by a Deputy Collector to ascertain the truth of the complaints received against the Petitioner from various quarters, he was given a full opportunity not only to cross -examine the witnesses but also to tender oral and documentary evidence. Since he referred to the same evidence in his explanation, it was not considered necessary to hold a further enquiry.