Arun Tandon, Dilip Gupta - (1.) -Petitioner before this Court is the elected Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur. He is aggrieved by an order of the State Government dated 10.11.2008 as communicated under the orders of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 12.11.2008 whereunder in exercise of powers under Section 48 (2), proviso of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, an order has been passed suspending the financial and administrative powers of the Chairman. The only reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman had not sanctioned the salary bill of the Class IV employees appointed by the Executive Officer in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur for the purposes of filling up the back log vacancy and further an order was passed by him stopping the salary of such employees. The petitioner has also been asked to show cause as to why he may not be removed from the office of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur.
(2.) THE order passed by the State Government is being questioned on the ground that the selections held by the Executive Officer were not in accordance with the Rules. THEre are serious infirmities/irregularities committed in such selections which were brought to the knowledge of the State Government by the petitioner vide his letter dated 27.11.2007. Reference has also been made to the report submitted by the Chief Revenue Officer dated 22.10.2007, in that regard. With reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat and others v. Nagar Palika, Azamgarh and others, 1994 (2) UPLBEC 745, it is contended that the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad in exercise of his supervisory powers under Section 50 (bb) and Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 63 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 can even cancel the appointments made by the Executive Officer and, therefore, in the facts of the present case if the petitioner has reported to the State Government that the appointments are illegal, he had the competence to stop the salary till the matter was inquired by the State Government qua the appointments made. Even otherwise it is contended that the alleged action of the petitioner cannot be termed to be a misconduct as per Section 48 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Faced with the aforesaid contention, standing counsel on behalf of the State respondents submits that since a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner while suspending his financial and administrative powers, it would be appropriate that the petitioner may be directed to submit his reply to the notice so issued and the State Government be directed to take appropriate decision thereafter, in a time bound manner.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. Having examined the show cause notice and the order impugned in the present writ petition, we find that only charge alleged against the writ petitioner who is the elected Chairman for suspension of his financial and administrative powers under Section 48 (2) of the Act is that the petitioner has not signed the salary bill of Class IV employees and had issued orders for stopping their salary.;