B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.2.2005 (Ann. 8), by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat, Sirathu, Kaushambi.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Sirathu in the year 1995 and he completed his tenure of five years upto October 2000. He was again elected in November, 2000 as Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat, Sirathu, Kaushambi. Certain complaints of irregularities and corruption against him were filed in September 2001 before the National Human Rights Commission, wherein an enquiry was held and the report dated 31.5.2001 (Ann.-1) was submitted to the Commission. Most of the allegations made in the complaint were found baseless. The petitioner received a show cause notice along with a charge-sheet dated 1.9.2003 in respect of irregularties committed by him and he was directed to file the reply to the same. After receiving the said charge-sheet, petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent No. 2 on 7.10,2003. In view of the amendment made in Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the Act 1916), the petitioner was deprived of his administrative and financial powers vide order dated 2nd June, 2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22469 of 2004, and this Court vide order dated 10.6.2004 stayed the operation of the said order. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner against the said charge-sheet, the authority found the charge proved, and thus, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which, petitioner submitted his reply. However, vide impugned order dated 18.2.2005 the petitioner has been removed and the respondent No. 6 being a Vice Chairman has been given the officiating charge. Hence this petition.
(3.) Sri K.S. Rathore learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been illegally removed from the post in a most undemocratic manner without giving any opportunity to him to examine or cross examine any witness; no document has ever been proved in his presence; the enquiry was conducted in a most arbitrary manner recording the finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he did not commit misconduct; the earlier enquiry report dated 31.5.2001 was not taken into consideration; the petitioner could not have been removed in such a unceromonial manner and the petition therefore deserves to be allowed.;