- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. On a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court to decide the question whether the State Government is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman or member of the Town Area Committee before confirming the order of his removal from office under Section 7-A of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), this case has been placed before the Full Bench. In the reference order the following questions have been formulated for consideration by the Full Bench:- " (1) Whether it is obligatory on the State Government to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman of Town Area Committee before confirmation under second proviso to Section 7-A of the Act of the order of the District Magistrate removing him? (ii) Whether State Government is required to pass a speaking order while confirming the order of the District Magistrate under the said above provisions? From the discussions in the reference order it appears that the Division Bench felt the necessity to refer the questions for consideration by Full Bench on being confronted with two conflicting decisions of different Division Benches of this Court in the case of Pargana Adhikari v. Ramesh Chandra Verma, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 156: (1994 All LJ 484) and Panna Lal Khandelwal v. State of U. P. , (1994) 23 All LR 481.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case necessary for proper appreciation of the questions raised may be stated thus: The petitioner Iqbal Ahmad is the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Kopaganj, District Mau. The District Magistrate, Mau passed the order dated 23-12-1993 under Section 7-A of the Act for removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairman of the Committee. The State Government by order dated 21- 12-1993 confirmed the order of the District Magistrate to remove the petitioner from the office of the Chairman of the Committee. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the aforementioned orders, inter alia, on the ground that the Government can confirm the order of the District Magistrate removing the Chairman only by passing a reasoned order after giving him an opportunity of hearing. In Pargana Adhikari, Sirathu v. Ramesh Chandra Verma (1994 All LJ 484) (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had laid down that it is obligatory on the Government to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman before confirming the order of the District Magistrate under Section 7-A of the Act. It is also laid down therein that it is not necessary for the Government to record elaborate reasons as are given in decisions of a Court of law in its order of confirmation; but the order must indicate that it has given due consideration to the points in controversy. In Panna Lal Khandelwal v. State of U. P. (supra), however, another Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that it is not obligatory on the part of the Government to give an opportunity of hearing to the Chairman before passing the order of confirmation. As noted earlier, faced with the said conflicting decisions the Division Bench in this case thought it proper to refer the case to Full Bench for an authoritative decision on the points formulated. Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the context of the statutory provision in Section 7-A of the Act and the consequences flowing from an order of removal of the Chairman or any member of the Town Area Committee, both the questions formulated by the Division Bench should be answered in the affirmative.
(3.) SRI Yatindra Singh, the learned Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand, contended that in the absence of any provision in the second proviso to Section 7-A of the Act which mandates the Government to give opportunity of hearing to the Chairman or the member concerned or pass a reasoned order, this Court should answer the questions referred in the negative. Since answer to the questions depends on interpretation of Section 7-A of the Act, it would be convenient to quote it in extenso: "7-A. Removal of Chairman or a member of a committee.- (1) The prescribed authority or, where an authority has not been prescribed, the District Magistrate, may remove a Chairman or any member of the Committee who, in its or his opinion.- (a) has been guilty of gross misconduct or failure in the discharge of his duties, or (b) has failed to pay for a period of more than one year any taxes or other dues payable by him to the Committee, or (c) has become disqualified for being a member under Section 6-K. Provided firstly, that before making an order removing the Chairman or the member, as the case may be, he shall be allowed an opportunity to submit his explanation on the charges or charge against him. Provided secondly, that no order for removal shall take effect unless it is confirmed by the State Government. (1-A) The State Government may on the recommendation of the prescribed authority referred to in sub- section (1) or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, place under suspension a Chairman or member against whom action has been commenced under sub-section (1) and, where the Chairman or the member has been so suspended, he shall not, for so long as the order of suspension is in force, be entitled- (a) to exercise the powers or perform the duties 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 Committee. (2) A member of Chairman removed under this section shall not be eligible for further election or nomination as a member or Chairman for a period of four years from the date of his removal. ";