Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Mohan Swaroop Moni against the order of the State of Rajasthan removing him from the chairmanship of the Municipal Board of Deeg.
(2.) THE application is a long one, making allegations of victimisation due to party-politics. We are, however, not concerned with all these allegations, and propose to mention the brief facts on which the applicant has come to us for relief. THEse facts are that the applicant was elected Chairman of the Municipal Board of Deeg by a unanimous vote in July, 1954. In May, 1955, he received a telegram asking him to meet the Secretary, Local Sell-Government with respect to certain complaints against him. THEreupon he wrote back saying that he might be supplied a copy of the complaint before he came to see the Secretary. He was then sent copy of the complaint made against him on the 10th of February, 1955, by a member of the Board. He submitted an explanation on the 17th of June, 1955, on all the points raised in the complaint against him. THEreafter he was ordered to meet the Minister on the 5th of July, 1955. He says that he could not meet the Minister on the 5th of July, but did meet him on the 7th of July, 1955, and gave oral explanation to him about the allegations in the application of the 10th of February, 1955. He says that thereafter he heard nothing further in the matter ; but suddenly on the 28th of October, 1955, on account of the machination of certain persons, he was ordered to meet the Minister on the 3rd of November, 1955, He could not meet the Minister on that date, but met him actually on the 17th of November, 1955 He says that the Minister did not give him a copy of the charges, but, asked him whether he was prepared to meet the charges, if read over to him, then and there, and he replied that he could not do so, and requested for time to give his explanation after he had received a copy of the charges. This, however, is said to have annoyed the Minister, and the interview came to an end. THEreafter he says that he was asked in December, 1903, for not obeying the orders of Government, and eventually an order was received on the 7th of January, 1956, by the Vice-Chairman removing him from the office of Chairman. This order is dated 31st of December, 1955, and apears to have been issued on the 5th of January, 1956. THE case of the applicant is that he was not given an opportunity of being heard, as required by section 22, sub-section (10), of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (Act No. XX11i of 1951), and, therefore, the order removing him was not in accordance with law, and should be set aside by this Court. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. Here again we are not concerned with the reply of the State to the allegations about the machination of party-politics in that area. We propose to refer to the reply of the State as to opportunity afforded to the applicant as provided in sec. 22 (10) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act. It appeals that the earlier party of the applicant's allegations, namely, his being asked to meet the Secretary in the Local Self-Government Department, his being supplied with a copy of the complaint against him by a member of the Board on the 10th of February, 1955, and his reply to these allegations, is all correct. Thereafter he was ordered to meet the Minister on the 5th of July. It is stated on behalf of the State that there is no record with them to show that the applicant met the Minister on the 7th July, as alleged by him ; but it is said that on the 9th July the Assistant Secretary made a note that the Minister had ordered framing of charges. It is, however, not disputed on behalf of the State that this order of the Minister was never carried out, and no charges were ever framed and put on the file. Nothing happened thereafter till the end of October, 1955, when the applicant was ordered to appear before the Minister on the 3rd of November, 1955. The applicant did not appear on that date ; but he aid appear on the 17th of November, when, it is said, he was heard by the Minister. It is also said that the Minister explained to the applicant all the allegations against him, and the applicant gave a reply and did not pray for further time. In support of this, reliance is placed on the note of the Minister dated 17th November, 1955, which is as follows : - "heard the Chairman to-day. He has refused to comply with orders of transfer. Before final decision of the case, one more chance should be given to him to comply orders. " This note of the Minister does not even say that he had read out the charges, and had taken the explanation of the applicant on all those charges. However, thereafter followed the order removing the applicant from the chairmanship, and the case of the State is that this order was passed after due consideration The main question that falls for decision is the interpretation of the words "after an opportunity is afforded for hearing him" appearing in sec. 22 (10) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act. What should be the minimum procedure which should be followed before it can be said that a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Municipal Board has been afforded an opportunity for heating ? It has been urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the procedure, which has been followed in this case, and which appears from the reply of the State, is sufficient compliance with these words. We must say that we cannot agree with this submission. Even a class IV servant of the State is afforded a batter opportunity than was afforded in this case to a chairman of the municipal board. We are of opinion that the minimum requirements of affording an opportunity to a chairman or a vice-chairman of a municipal board are that proper charges should be framed against them in writing and they should be given a reasonable time in which to give their explanation in writing to the charges supplied to them. There-after it is for the Government to decide whether a parsonal hearing should be given or not. But personal hearing is not of the essence of the opportunity which is mentioned in sec. 22 (10 ). It does not require much argument to show that this minimum procedure is necessary in order that responsible officials of elected bodies, like chair nan and vice-chairman of a municipal board, should have proper protection, and should be able to meet the complaints made against them by all and sundry. Otherwise, if matters are left to oral reading out of allegations or charges, and oral replies by chairman or vice-chairman, there will always be disputes as to what charges were read out and what replies were given, as is actually the case here The applicant says that no charges were read over to him and no replies were given by him. It has been stated on behalf of the State that the Minister read out the charges and received replies from the chairman, it is, in our opinion, essential in order that the provisions of sec. 22 (10) may be properly carried out for affording an opportunity to a chairman or vice-chairman of being heard that the charges must be given in writing and the replies must be received in writing after a reasonable time. It is not as it the Government was not aware of this, for we have in this very case that the intention was to frame charges against the Chairman, and that is the order which was passed by the then Minister on the 9th of July, l955. But unfortunately for some reason or the other that order was never carried out, and the Coalman was dealt with as if he was not even entitled to the consideration to which a class IV servant in Government service is entitled. We are, therefore, of opinion that as the minimum requirements of procedure, which are necessary if a chairman or vice-chairman can be said to have been afforded an opportunity of being heard, have not been gone through in this case, the order removing the Chairman must be set aside. It is for the State to decide whether fresh proceedings should be taken on the lines indicated by us. We, therefore, allow this application, and set aside the order of the Government dated 31st December, 1955, removing the applicant from the chair-manship of the Municipal Board of Deeg. The applicant will get his costs from the State. .;