JANARDAN SAHAI, RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bisauli, Budaun. He is aggrieved by an order dated 27.3.2008 of the State Government by which he has been removed from the post of Chairman in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. It appears that a complaint dated 29.5.2007 was filed against one Junior Engineer Rajive Sharma and an inspection was made and certain irregularities were found and a report was submitted on the same date by a Committee of four persons including Naib Tehsildar that the allegations were proved and that the constructions had been made even before the tenders were invited for the work. On the basis of the said report dated 29.5.2007 a letter was sent by the District Magistrate, Budaun to the State Government on 15.6.2007 that irregularities were committed by the office holders of the Nagar Panchayat recommending that action be taken against the Chairman and other person involved. On the basis of the said report the State Government issued a notice dated 7.9.2007 to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed. According to the petitioner some of the papers which were quite material were not furnished to him whereas according to the respondents all the papers which were relevant were furnished to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner made an application that he may be furnished with certain documents to enable him to give effective reply.
(2.) IT is stated that thereafter a notice for personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the State Government on 7.1.2008 but actually no hearing took place. According to the respondent personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Ultimately the State Government passed, the impugned order dated 27.3.2008 removing the petitioner from the office of the Chairman. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that there is a reference to about 17 charges against the petitioner in the order and after recital of the charges of the explanation of the petitioner in respect of each of the said charges along with the comments of the District Magistrate in respect of each of the charges has been given. This recital goes on into several pages for the entire length of the order but the findings have been recorded in the last page of the order in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. In Paragraph 5 of the order reference has been made to a letter of the District Magistrate, Budaun dated 14.3.2008 in respect of certain other irregularities committed by the petitioner. These irregularities are said to be in addition to the allegations made in the notice dated 7.9.2007. The case of the petitioner is that he was never given opportunity to show cause against the irregularities referred to in the letter of the District Magistrate dated 14.3.2008. There appears to be merit in this contention as the notice given to the petitioner is of a much earlier date. The finding of the State Government that the petitioner has committed the irregularities is no more than a conclusion without reasons that the charges have been proved. This can hardly be regarded a finding. No finding however has been given by the State Government charge wise. There is nothing to show that the State Government applied its mind before passing the order. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Nasimuddin v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (3) ESC 1611. All in support of his contention that an order of the State Government for removal is to be passed in consonance with the terms of Section 43 (2-A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and three legal barriers have to be passed by the State Government before the said order can pass, namely, an explanation of the President is to be considered and enquiry is then to be held and reasons are to be recorded in writing regarding the removal of the President from his office. The decision supports the petitioner's case.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid reason the order passed by the State Government cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 is quashed. It will be open to the State Government to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The State Government may take a fresh decision in the matter preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the parties. Petition allowed.;