- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, holding the office of Chairperson of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bilari, District Moradabad, has questioned the notice-cum-order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure -1) whereby the State Government, while informing him of charges in relation to eight different allegations and calling upon him to show-cause as to why he be not removed from office, has debarred him from exercising administrative and financial powers until he is exonerated of the charges.
(2.) In challenge to the notice-cum-order so issued by the State Government, the petitioner has taken a ground in the writ petition that the action impugned is an outcome of extraneous considerations inasmuch as the concerned Member of Legislative Assembly (arrayed as respondent No. 4) has been nursing a grudge against him for the reason that he challenged the nomination of five persons as members of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bilari by way of a writ petition bearing No. 64500 of 2013 wherein this Court passed an interim order on 4.12.2013 staying the operation of impugned order pertaining to the nominations in question. According to the petitioner, the Member of Legislative Assembly concerned being antagonized, has got initiated the inquiry against him on baseless charges. The petitioner has further submitted that all the charges levelled against him remain baseless and incorrect and he is being subjected to unnecessary harassment.
(3.) Apart from the foregoing, during the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 ('the Act') and submitted that for a valid order withdrawing the financial and administrative powers of the Chairperson of a Municipality, it is incumbent for the State Government to record that the allegations do not appear to be groundless but no such satisfaction has been recorded in the order impugned and the same deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a larger Bench decision of this Court in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 LawSuit(All) 2383, to submit that the show-cause notice should not only indicate the materials on which the reason of belief or objective satisfaction is based but the evidence, by which the charges are to be proved, should also be mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has particularly referred to paragraph 84 of this decision. It is submitted that no material having been supplied in support of the charges, the impugned notice-cum-order remains baseless and deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the report made by the District Magistrate on 11.10.2014 and submitted that thereunder, the recommendations had only been of adopting the proceedings under Section 81 of the Act and acting upon such a report, the Government was not justified in taking up the proceedings under Section 48 of the Act.;