Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing a writ petition.
(2.) The appellant was elected as the President of the Kashipur Municipal Board in the elections held in October, 1953. He continued to act as such till he was suspended from that office by an order of the Government served on him, on 1-10-1954. On 21-9-1954, two orders appear to have been passed by the Government, one was G. O. No. 289F(i)/XI-A-616/1954. This G. O. was from Shri H. L. Bhargava, Under Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, to the District Magistrate, Naini Tal. It required the? District Magistrate to call upon the appellant to show cause, within two weeks of the receipt of the order, why he should not be removed from the office of the President of the board under Section 48(2) U. P. Municipalities Act on account of the charges-set forth in an enclosed list. The enclosed list contained 11 charges. The explanation when received was to be forwarded to Government along with the District Magistrate's comments and definite recommendations^ and if no explanation was received by the due date the fact was to be reported to Government. The other G. O. of the same date was No. 289F. (ii)/XI-A-616/54. This was also from Sri H. L. Bhargava, Under Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh to the District Magistrate of Naini Tal. It. ran as follows : "In continuation of G. O. No. 289F(i)/XI-A-616/54, dated 21-9-1954, I am directed to say that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 48, U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, as amended from time to time, the Governor has been, pleased to order immediate suspension of Sri Ram Niwas, from the Presidentship of Municipal Board, Kashipur, pending enquiry into the charges against him." Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 48, as amended, under which the two orders were issued run as follows : "48 (2). The State Government may, at any time, if it is satisfied: (a) that there has been a failure on the part of the President in performing his duties, give him a warning or remove him from office as the State Government think fit, or (b) that the President has ..................... (vi) been guilty of gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties, remove him from office. Provided that before giving a warning or removing him from the office under this sub-section the State Government shall give him an opportunity of explaining the conduct on account of which it is proposed to take action against him, and shall in the event of taking such action place on record the reasons therefor and the decision of the State Government thereon shall not be questioned in any Court. (3) The State Government may place under suspension a President against whom action is proposed under Sub-clause (vi) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) until the proceedings are over and where a President has been so suspended he shall not for so long as; the order of suspension continues be entitled "(a) to exercise the powers or perform the duties of a President imposed upon him by or under this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force; and (b) to take part in any proceedings of the board."
(3.) It is conceded that the charges framed against the appellant fell under Sub-clause (vi) of Section 48 (2) (b). After the appellant received these orders on 1-10-1954, he applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on 3-11-1954, for an order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of suspension dated 21-9-1954, and for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the other order of the same Sate. The application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.;