B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 13.3.2007 that has been issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 48 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called Act) and the order depriving the petitioner from exercising his financial and administrative powers issued under the proviso to Section 48 (2) of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioner was elected as a Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh (hereinafter called the Nagar Palika). An advocate namely Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav filed a complaint before the Lok Ayaukt alleging certain illegalities and irregularities committed by the petitioner as a Chairman of the Nagar Palika. THE Lok Ayukt vide letter dated 29.5.2003 made a recommendation for holding an enquiry against the petitioner. However, prior to that the State Government had directed for holding of an enquiry against him and after holding a preliminary inquiry a report was submitted to the State Government by the District Collector, Azamgarh on 25.9.2002. A show cause notice dated 21.5.2003 was issued by the State Government under Section 48 (2) of the Act. THE petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2956 of 2003 to challenge the said notice. THE said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 6.6.2003 with the observation that a copy of the report be supplied to the petitioner and he will file the reply of the same and till then no action should be taken on the basis of the said notice. Subsequent thereto, the State Government issued another show cause notice dated 11.5.2004 containing seven charges. THE petitioner submitted a reply to the said charges on 31.5.2004. An inquiry was then conducted by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh and the report was submitted. THE petitioner was also given a copy thereof and he filed his reply on 21.9.2005. THE State Government passed the order dated 26.9.2005 depriving the petitioner from exercising the financial and administrative powers and the District Collector, Azamgarh passed the consequential order dated 29.9.2005 withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner. THE said orders dated 26.9.2005 and 29.9.2005, were again challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 62368 of 2005, but no interim relief was granted, nor the respondents filed a counter-affidavit. THE said petition is still pending. THE term of the petitioner came to an end on 3.12.2005 but he was again elected as Chairman on 7.11.2006. THE petitioner was then served with a fresh show cause notice dated 13.3.2007 and an order depriving him from exercising his financial and administrative powers. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the said notice. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the amendments made from time to time in Section 48 of the Act, the State Government does not have a power to remove the Chairperson of the Nagar Palika and while interpreting the provisions of Section 48 of the Act the Court should give a strict literal interpretation as the order which could be passed would not only have the consequence of removal from the post but could also make the Chairman disqualified from contesting the election for a period of five years in future. He further submitted that even otherwise, a charge-sheet had earlier been served upon him in respect of the alleged misconduct in his earlier term but without concluding the inquiry the second charge-sheet on the same allegations has been issued which is not permissible and that the charge-sheet is vague and no inquiry can be conducted on the said allegations. On the contrary, Shri C. S. Singh, learned standing counsel and Shri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel permitted to assist the Court under the provisions of Chapter XII, Rule 5A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, have submitted that submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are totally misconceived as there is an apparent mistake in numbering the amended provision. If the submission of Shri Shashi Nandan is accepted then Section 48 of the Act would be rendered otiose as there would be no power with the State Government to pass any order for removal of the Chairman. They also submitted that the charge-sheet did not suffer from any infirmity.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act and the various amendments made from time to time. Section 48 of the Act deals with removal of President. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 was deleted by U. P. Act No. 7 of 1949. Sub-section (2) of Section 48 which was substituted by Act No. 27 of 1964 provides that where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that any of the circumstances enumerated in (a) or (b) exist, then it may call upon the President to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office. Sub-sections (2A) and (2B) were also added by U. P. Act No. 27 of 1964. Sub-section (2A) provides that after considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from office while sub-section (2B) provides that an order passed by the State Government under sub-section (2A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court.;