Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) The Petitioner was a member of the Municipal Board, Bareilly, having been elected in the year 1957. He was removed by the State Government Under Sec. 4(3) of the UP Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act). By means of this petition he has prayed that the order of the State Government dated 21 -7 -60 removing him be quashed. The grounds on which the petition was founded were firstly that all the material on the basis of which the State Government found against the Petitioner had not been indicated to him with the result that he had not a reasonable opportunity of submitting an explanation and secondly that there was no relevant material on the basis of which the Petitioner could be adjudged guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a member of the Board.
(2.) I have heard Messers. Jagdish Swarup and S.G. Khare for the Petitioner and the Advocate General and Mr. Pant Junior Standing Council for the Respondents. Before I investigate into the correctness or otherwise of the grounds on which the petition is found, it appears to me proper to consider another aspect of the case which in my judgment renders the order of the State Government void. It is common ground that in the order passed by the State Government removing the Petitioner from the membership of the Municipal Board of Bareilly the reasons for his removal have not been recorded in writing. The question for consideration is whether the law requires that the order by which a member is removed, should be self contained and should give the reasons for the removal. Sec. 40 of the Act reads as follows: - * * * *
(3.) Sub -section (4) requires that a member against whom proceedings for removal have been started should be given an opportunity of furnishing an explanation and that if an action is taken removing him, "the reasons therefor shall be placed on record." The learned Advocate General and the learned Junior Standing Counsel contend that it would be a proper compliance of the provisions of law if the reasons are not given in the order of removal itself but are recorded in a separate document which is kept in the file of the case in the Secretariat. In my opinion that is not a correct interpretation of Sub -section (4) of Sec. 40 of the Act. It is worthy of notice that the words are: "the reasons therefore shall be placed on record" and not "the reasons therefore shall be placed in the record of the case." The word 'record' is also used in the sense of order or judgment. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, amongst the meanings given for that word, the following are also given:;