- (1.) ASHOK A. Desai and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ. Sometimes in the year 1995 the petitioner was elected as a President of Municipal Council. On 7-6-1999, show cause notice purported to be under Clause (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was served on him. In sum and substance, the allegation there in was, certain appoint ments were made contrary to the Govern ment Orders and there were certain ir regularities. By communication dated 24-6-1999 the President asked certain docu ments to file reply to the show cause notice. They were denied and by the im pugned order dated 13-8-1999 the petitioner was removed from the office of the President.
(2.) TO support the order, the learned standing Counsel for the State urged before us that the petitioner at the relevant time temporarily appointed one Junior Engineer as a Chief Officer and by influencing him got about 48 appoint ments regularised. According to learned Counsel, there was no sanction to these posts. Moreover, requisition was not sent to the Employment Exchange. The Presi dent has thus acted with a flagrant dis regard to the provisions and wilfully com mitted irregularities in giving these ap pointments. It was further added that all these appointments since w. ere made by the petitioner, he was not justified in demanding the copies of the documents. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the show cause notice, which is at page 38 of the paper-book. The show cases notice does not say in any manner about the ap pointment of Chief Officer and influenc ing him or manipulating the appointment through him of the various posts. Further more, even though the appointments were during the regime of the petitioner he is entitled to peruse the relevant documents. The denial of those documents is certainly violation of principle of natural justice. Moreover, we see that imputation in the show cause notice is ambiguous and com pletely vague. The order of removal pur suant to the said show cause notice, there fore, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13-8-1999. However, we clarify rhat the Government is at liberty to take action after issuing appropriate show cause notice incorporating the charges in clear terms and granting necessary opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed. .;