Allahabad High Court

Mohan Sahu vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 December, 2022

Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
RESERVED
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32241 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohan Sahu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akash Deep Srivastava,Birendra Singh,Sant Ram Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Under challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 3.10.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P., Department of Urban Development, whereby, in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 19161, the petitioner has been removed from the post of President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda, District Banda.

BACKGROUND

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case is that the petitioner contested the election held in the year 2017 for the office of the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda in which he was declared elected and he assumed his office on 12.12.2017. On complaints made against the petitioner, the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, directed an investigation and constituted a three member committee to conduct enquiry with regard to the contents in the complaint. An ex-parte enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee comprising of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Banda, the Chief Treasury Officer, Banda and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Departments, Prantiya Khand, Banda which submitted its report dated 25/26.11.2020 before the respondent no. 2. The aforesaid inquiry report was forwarded by the respondent no. 2 along with its letter dated 17.12.2020 to the respondent no. 1, who issued a show cause notice dated 2.3.2021 to the petitioner under Section 48(2) of the Act of 1916 containing the same allegations which were subject matter of the complaint. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within a period of one month and to show cause why proceedings in terms of the provisions contained under Section 48(2) of the Act of 1916 be not drawn against him. A reply dated 7.5.2021 was submitted by the petitioner denying all charges levelled against him. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 forwarded the same to the respondent no. 2 for its comments. The respondent no. 2, by an order dated 6.7.2021, constituted a three member committee to submit its comments. The three members committee submitted its report dated 20.7.2021 which was forwarded by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1. By an order dated 25.8.2021, the respondent no. 1 ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad. On 25.8.2021 itself, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear on 9.9.2021 before an officer of the respondent no. 1 along with relevant documents. It was mentioned in the notice that in case on the appointed date and time, the petitioner does not appear, it would be assumed that he has nothing to say in his defense and a decision would be taken on merits.

3. Against the order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1, ceasing the administrative and financial power of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 23029 of 20212 (Mohan Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court which was allowed by a judgement dated 16.12.2021 after holding that there was no application of mind to the material placed on record by the petitioner in his reply and that the order was passed blindly relying upon the report of the District Magistrate which was not even furnished to the petitioner. After relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Vs. State of U.P.3, and Babita Kasudhan Vs. State of U.P. and others4, it was held that the proceedings and the order of cessation of the financial and administrative powers of the President were arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 25.8.2021 was quashed leaving it open to the State Government to take a decision afresh in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter the petitioner was served a notice dated 11.4.2022 by the respondent no. 1 asking him to appear for personal hearing. Since the petitioner could not appear on the specified date, by another notice dated 28.4.2022 he asked to appear on 5.5.2022. The petitioner presented himself on that day but since the Secretary concerned was not available in his office, the hearing could not take place. Again the petitioner received a notice dated 10.6.2022 asking him to appear on 24.6.2022 but since he was ill, he moved an application dated 23.6.2022 intimating that due to ill health he was unable to appear. Another notice dated 31.8.2022 was issued asking the petitioner to appear within seven days. The petitioner, with all relevant documents, appeared in the office of the respondent no. 1 on 2.9.2022 but the officer concerned was not available in the office and as such the hearing could not take place. The petitioner again received a notice dated 1.9.2022 asking him to appear for personal hearing on 9.9.2022. However, since the petitioner was admitted in Medical College Banda, he pleaded his inability to attend due to his medical condition and forwarded all the relevant documents relating to his sickness to the respondent no. 1. By the impugned order dated 3.10.2022, the respondent no. 1 passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda in exercise of powers conferred under Section 48 of the Act of 1916.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no 1 in which, apart from generally denying the contents of the writ petition, it is stated that repeated opportunities of hearing were given to the petitioner but he did not appear which proved that the petitioner has no evidence to negate the charges leveled against him. It is further stated that a letter dated 1.7.2021 was issued by the State Government whereby the District Magistrate, Banda (respondent no 2) was directed to provide 'cross-examination report' examining the charges and the reply given by the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 23.7.2021 provided 'cross-examination report'. It is stated that proceedings were initiated and concluded as per provisions of the Act of 1916 after providing proper opportunity of hearing. It is stated that by a letter dated 13.10.2022 an Administrator was appointed for the Nagar Palika as per the provisions of Section 54A of the Act of 1916.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that:-

6. (i) The previous order dated 25.8.2021 whereby the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner were ceased was set aside with liberty being reserved to the State Government to examine the defence set up by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice and pass order afresh in accordance with law. It is contended that the impugned order dated 3.10.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Nagar Palika Parishad is based on findings that are similar to the findings recorded in the order dated 25.8.2021 which has already been quashed by this Court in the previous writ petition of 2021. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph no. 48 of the writ petition which contains a comparative table containing the findings of each of the charges as recorded in the order dated 25.8.2021 and in the impugned order dated 3.10.2022.

(ii) There is no application of mind reflected in the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 to the objections/reply dated 7.5.2021 filed by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 2.3.2021 which culminated in the previous order dated 25.8.2021. It is stated that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply to the charges after the matter was remitted by this Court through it judgement in the writ of 2021.

(iii) Mandatory requirement of holding an enquiry against the President of Nagar Palika Parishad has not been complied with by the respondents and this itself would vitiate and void the impugned order dated 3.10.2022. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement dated 13.10.2022 passed by this Bench in the matter of Shaila Tahir Vs State of UP and others5.

(iv) The District Magistrate has unlawfully constituted a three member committee to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 2.3.2021.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has relied upon the report of the three member committee that was constituted by the District Magistrate pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 1.7.2022 sent by the State Government to the District Magistrate, to contend that proper enquiry was conducted and due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner repeatedly failed to avail opportunities of hearing and therefore, the State Government was justified in passing the order impugned dated 3.10.2022 removing the petitioner from service.

8. Learned counsel for the caveator has stated that the order impugned dated 3.10.2022 itself reflects, the petitioner has admitted charge nos. 4, 7 and 8, which are grave and serious in nature. Therefore, the respondent no. 1 was justified in removing the petitioner as President and lack of inquiry proceedings would not vitiate the proceedings.

ANALYSIS

9. A perusal of the record reveals that certain complaints were made against the petitioner to the Chief Minister whereafter the complaints were referred to the respondent no. 2 for submitting a report. A three member committee was constituted by the respondent no.2 to enquire into the matter which committee submitted a report dated 25/26.11.2020 to the District Magistrate. This report was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government. By letter dated 2.3.2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner specifying 11 charges against the petitioner along with the letter of the District Magistrate dated 17.12.2020 as well as the enquiry report dated 25/26.11.2020 asking him to give his reply clarification with evidence within a month. By letter dated 7.5.2021 the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the State Government and submitted his clarifications in respect of each of the charges. The allegations made against the petitioner were denied by him in his reply with clarifications.

10. By a letter dated 20.7.2021, a three member committee consisting of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), the Chief Treasury Officer and the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department submitted its 'cross-examination report' after considering the reply of the petitioner. A perusal of the aforesaid 'cross-examination report' by the three member committee reveals that charges contained specific allegations and each allegation was dealt with in the following format-

(i) charge/allegation

(ii) reply/clarification of the President

(iii) cross-examination report.

11. It is evident from perusal of the 'cross-examination report' that each reply/clarification was lifted from the reply submitted by the petitioner on 7.5.2022 and from the corresponding facts mentioned in the preliminary enquiry made by the three member committee and compiled. By an office order dated 25.8.2021, the respondent no. 1, relying totally on the 'cross-examination report' and documents on record, proceeded to record its findings on the charges in gross violation of principles of natural justice and passed an order ceasing the exercise, performance and discharge of financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the petitioner until his exoneration of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice issued to him. Simultaneously, on 25.8.2021 itself a notice was issued to the petitioner enclosing therewith the 'cross-examination report' and asking him to appear on 9.9.2021 at 12.30 PM along with relevant documents for placing his stand.

12. By the writ petition of 2021, the aforesaid order dated 25.8.2021 ceasing administrative and financial powers of the petitioner was challenged in which, this Court observed as follows:-

"9. We find that the specific reply submitted by the petitioner to the allegation made against him has neither been adverted to nor there is any application of mind on part of the State Government while returning the finding of guilt, in that regard, against the petitioner. We find that similar is the situation in other charges.

10. From the materials that have been placed before the Court, we find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the decision to return the finding of guilt against the petitioner is not preceded with any proper application of mind to the materials placed on record by the petitioner, in his reply, and the order has been passed blindly relying upon the report of the District Magistrate which was not even furnished to the petitioner.

..........

12. Exercise of power by the State Government to seize financial and administrative powers of an elected representative have serious adverse consequences and, therefore, this Court in a series of judgments has deprecated the practice of passing routine orders without complying with the principles of natural justice.

.........

20. Power to seize administrative and financial powers of Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad vests under the statute with the State Government. The State Government, therefore, is required to examine the reply of the petitioner to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the conclusion drawn by the State must reflect due application of mind on part of the State Government to the merits of the reply/defence submitted by the petitioner. Since such consideration on part of the State Government is found wanting, the order seizing administrative and financial powers of the State is found legally unsustainable. The order dated 25th August, 2021 is accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Liberty, however, stands reserved to the State Government to examine the defence set up by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice and pass order, afresh, in accordance with law."

13. Following the judgement and order dated 16.12.2021 in the writ petition of 2021, by an order dated 7.1.2022, the State Government rescinded the order dated 25.8.2021 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

14. By a notice dated 11.4.2022, the respondent no. 1 fixed 22.4.2022 for personal hearing of the petitioner. By a letter dated 19.4.2022, the petitioner sought 10 days time to submit his reply. By means of another notice dated 28.4.2022, the respondent no. 1 fixed 5.5.2022 for personal hearing to the petitioner. However, since the petitioner unwell, by the letter dated 23.6.2022, he sought an adjournment.

15. By a ''final notice' dated 31.8.2022, the respondent no. 1 directed that from the date of receipt of the notice, the petitioner is provided 7 days time for personal hearing. The petitioner has filed a daily entrance letter of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat (Bapu Bhawan) to evince his presence for the hearing as mentioned in the final notice dated 31.8.2022. It has been stated by the petitioner that he appeared in the office of the respondent no. 1 on 2.9.2022 but the Secretary before whom the hearing was fixed, was not available in the office and as such the hearing could not take place. This paragraph has not been denied by the respondent no. 1 in the counter affidavit.

16. Another final notice dated 2.9.2022 was issued to the petitioner fixing 9.9.2022 for personal hearing. By means of a letter dated 8.9.2021 addressed to the respondent no. 1, the petitioner stated that he has been admitted to Medical College Banda and is undergoing tests and treatment and as soon as he is well, he will report for personal hearing. Along with his letter dated 8.9.2022, the petitioner submitted the records of the Medical College which facts appear in paragraph nos. 33 and 34 of the writ petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed a copy of the patient data and the ultrasound report along with discharge slip dated 9.9.2022 issued by the Department of Surgery by the Medical College Banda. The ultrasound report and the discharge slip reveals that there was a calculi present in the gall bladder of the petitioner measuring 8.6 millimeters and he was admitted in the surgery ward with complaint of abdominal pain for 15 days and he was managed and discharged as he was unfit for surgery. The aforesaid averments have not been denied in the counter affidavit and in reply it is stated as follows-

"16. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.33 of the writ petition it is submitted that on various dates the opportunity was given to the petitioner for hearing but the petitioner was not turned up which proves that the petitioner has no evidence in his favour to deny the charges leveled upon him.

17. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.34 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof in support of the averments made in paragraph under reply."

17. By the impugned order dated 3.10.2022, the petitioner has been removed as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad in purported exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act of 1916. A perusal of the impugned order dated 3.10.2022 reveals that only the reply of the petitioner filed to the initial show cause notice of 7.5.2021 were considered. This order further reveals that each of the charges/allegations labelled against the petitioner were again considered in the following format-

(i) charge/allegation

(ii) reply/clarification of the President

(iii) 'cross-examination report', and

(iv) conclusion

18. As a matter of fact, in paragraph no. 48 of the writ petition a comparative table has been prepared reflecting the findings recorded in the order dated 25.8.2021 (which order was quashed by the judgement of this Court in writ petition of 2021) and, the finding recorded in the impugned order dated 3.10.2022 against each of the charges/allegations. The table is being reproduced below-

Charge Nos.

Findings recorded in the order dated 25.8.2021

Findings recorded in the order dated 3.10.2022

1(1)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-1 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि कम्प्यूटर आपरेटर को ज्ञान न होने के कारण निविदा गलत अपलोड हो गयी थी। विभाग में निविदा आमंत्रित किये जाने से पूर्व उसकी शर्तो एवं प्रतिबन्धों का भली भॉति परीक्षण निविदा समिति द्वारा किया जाना चाहिये था, संतुष्टि के उपरान्त ही निविदा प्रकाशित की जानी चाहिये। इस बिन्दु पर आपका उत्तर प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में मान्य नहीं पाया गया है। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या-1 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

1(2)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-2 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि आप द्वारा बिना किसी आचौत्यपूर्ण कारण के द्वितीय वार मॉगी गयी निविदा निरस्त की गयी है। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या-2 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

1(3)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-3 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि मनमाने तरीके से निविदा निरस्त किये जाने के अपने उत्तरदायित्व से अध्यक्ष बच नहीं सकते। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या -3 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

1(4)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-4 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि उपजिलाधिकारी द्वारा निविदा निरस्त किये जाने के संबंध में कोई संस्तुति नहीं की गयी है। उ०प्र० प्रोक्योरमेण्ट मैनुअल 2016 के प्राविधानानुसार द्वितीय बार आमंत्रित निविदा की वित्तीय बिड कतिपय शर्तो के अधीन खोली जा सकती है। जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आप द्वारा यह निविदा निजी स्वार्थ एवं इच्छापूर्ति न हो पाने के कारण निरस्त की गयी है। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या-4 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

1(5)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-5 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि जिलाधिकारी बॉदा द्वारा नगरीय रोजगार एवं गरीबी उन्मूलन कार्यक्रम विभाग से आपूर्ति लिये जाने के निर्देशों के क्रम में निविदा का निरस्त किया गया।

1(6)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-6 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि उक्त निविदा अधिशाषी अधिकारी नगर पालिका परिषद, बॉदा द्वारा अध्यक्ष नगर पालिका परिषद बॉदा के अनुमोदन बिना प्रकाशित कराया गया है जिसे अध्यक्ष के पत्र 25.7.2019 के क्रम में निरस्त किया गया।

1(7)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-7 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि आउट सोर्सिंग कर्मिको की आपूर्ति में मनचाही सांठ-गांठ वाली फर्म के प्रतिभाग न करने के कारण बिना औचित्यपूर्ण कारण से निविदा निरस्त की गयी है। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या-7 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

1(8)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-8 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि जिलाधिकारी के आदेश का सम्यक अनुपालन नहीं किया गया निविदा निरस्त होने के दिनॉक 28.9.2019 से लगभग 02 माह बाद दिनॉक 8.11.2019 को निविदा अपलोड की गयी है। स्पष्ट है कि मनचाही एवं चहेती फर्म से सांठ-गांठ न हो पाने के कारण जानबूझ कर निविदा प्रक्रिया से बचने का प्रयास किया गया है। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या-8 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

1(9)

आरोप संख्या-1 के बिन्दु संख्या-9 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि फर्मों द्वारा वॉछित अभिलेखों को जमा न किये जाने का आधार लेते हुए निविदा निरस्त की गयी है, वह विधिक/औचित्यपूर्ण नहीं है क्योंकि टेण्डर में क्रेता एजेंसी/संस्था द्वारा वॉछित अभिलेखों का शर्तो में ही पूर्व से ही उल्लेख किया जाता है। निविदा खुल जाने के उपरान्त कोई नई शर्त का जोडा जाना नियमानुसार नहीं है। अतः उक्त आरोप का बिन्दु संख्या-9 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.1

इस प्रकार लगातार 9 बार निविदाओ के निरस्त होने के कारण पूर्व से कार्यरत संस्था से आउट सोर्स कार्मिकों की सेवाये लिये जाने तथा लगातार उन्हें भुगतान किये जाने से स्पष्ट है कि आप द्वारा पूर्व संस्था मे० देवभूति कांस्ट्रक्शन से सांठ-गांठ के कारण ही नयी निविदा प्रक्रिया सम्पन्न नहीं करायी गयी। उक्तानुसार आरोप संख्या-1 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.1

Conclusion of Charge No.2

आरोप संख्या-2 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि वित्तीय नियमों के अनुसार क्रेता विभाग द्वारा टेण्डर प्रक्रिया से बचने के लिये अपनी आवश्यकता को टुकडों में विभाजित नहीं किया जाना चाहिये। यह एक वित्तीय अनियमितता है। टेण्डर प्रक्रिया से बचने के लिये मार्ग प्रकाश हेतु कोटेशन के माध्यम से रूपये 1,00,000से कम धनराशि की एल०ई०डी० लाईटो का क्रय करते हुए अनियमित प्रक्रिया को अपनाया गया है। उक्त सामग्री का क्रय नियमानुसार जेम पोर्टल पर बिड/निविदा के माध्यम से किया जाना चाहिये जो नहीं किया गया है। इससे स्पष्ट है कि आप द्वारा शासनादेशों/वित्तीय नियमों की अनदेखी करते हुए बिना विज्ञापन/टेण्डर/जेम पोर्टल के माध्यम से क्रय न करते हुए टुकड़ो टुकड़ो में विद्युत सामग्री का क्रय किया गया है। अतः आरोप संख्या-2 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.2

Conclusion of Charge No.3

आरोप संख्या-3 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि शिकायत में किसी विशिष्ट तथ्य के अभाव में अध्यक्ष द्वारा दिये गये उत्तर/स्पष्टीकरण पर टिप्पणी किया जाना सम्भव नहीं है। अतः आरोप संख्या-3 आप पर सिद्ध नहीं होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.3

Conclusion of Charge No.4

आरोप संख्या-4 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि यद्यपि अध्यक्ष द्वारा बोर्ड से पारित प्रस्ताव के आधार पर नामान्तरण की कार्यवाहियॉ की गयी है किन्तु उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 की धारा 147(1) तथा व धारा 147(2) के अन्तर्गत नामॉतरण का अधिकार अधिशासी अधिकारी के दायित्वों/अधिकारों में निहित है। इस प्रकार आप द्वारा नियम विरूद्ध अधिशासी अधिकारी के अधिकारो/दायित्यों का अतिक्रमण कर बिना अधिकार गैर कानूनी रूप से नामान्तरण की कार्यवाहियॉ की गयी है। अतः आरोप संख्या-4 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.4

Conclusion of Charge No.5

आरोप संख्या-5 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि टेण्डर कार्यवाही पूर्ण किये बिना नियम विरूद्ध तरीके से सेवा प्रदाता से सफाई कर्मचारी लेकर नाला सफाई कार्य प्रारम्भ करा दिया गया। नाला सफाई हेतु टेण्डर न कराकर आप द्वारा मानव दिवस के आधार पर नाला सफाई का कार्य कराया गया है जबकि शासनादेशानुसार नाला सफाई का कार्य पृथक से टेण्डर के माध्यम से कराया जाना चाहिये। अतः जिलाधिकारी का प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-5 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.5

Conclusion of Charge No.6

आरोप संख्या-6 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि आउट सोर्स फर्म द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गये कार्मिकों से उनके कार्यों से इतर मनमाने तरीके कार्य लिया जा रहा है। आप द्वारा इस बिन्दु पर कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया गया है जिससे की गयी शिकायत की पुष्टि होती है। अतः जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप आख्या-6 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.6

Conclusion of Charge No.7

आरोप संख्या-7 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि अध्यक्ष का उक्त स्पष्टीकरण स्वीकार्य नहीं है। नगर पालिका का अध्यक्ष जनता द्वारा चुना जाने वाला व्यक्ति होता है यह पद किसी के द्वारा नामित नहीं किया जाता है। अध्यक्ष का उक्त कृत्य नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है। उक्त अधिनियम में ऐसा कोई प्राविधान नहीं है जिसके अनुसार जनता द्वारा चुना गया अध्यक्ष स्वयं किसी व्यक्ति को अध्यक्ष मनोनीत कर सके। आप द्वारा शासन स्तर से प्राप्त स्पष्टीकरण का भी कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया गया जो आपके स्वेच्छाचारिता का द्योतक है। कार्यवाहक अध्यक्ष द्वारा मे० अनुराग इन्टरप्राइजेज द्वारा आपूर्ति स्ट्रीट लाईट के बिल रूपये 3280030-00 के भुगतान की स्वीकृत दिनांक 18.12.2019 को अपने हस्ताक्षर से प्रदान की गयी है। आपका यह कथन कि उन्हें किसी प्रकार की वित्तीय प्रक्रिया निर्वहन हेतु दायित्व नहीं दिया गया स्वतः मिथ्या सिद्ध हो जाता है। आपका उक्त कृत्य नियम विरूद्ध मनमाना तथा उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 का खुला उल्लघंन है। अतः जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-7 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.7

Conclusion of Charge No.8

आरोप संख्या-8 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि मा० विधायक सदर बॉदा द्वारा इस बिन्दु पर अपनी शिकायत वापस ले ली गयी है। शिकायत को वापस लिये जाने से निजी भूमि पर नगर पालिका के धन से कराये गये इण्टरलाकिंग के कार्य, धनराशि रूपये 186218-00 का अपव्यय छिपाया नहीं जा सकता है। आप द्वारा अपने उत्तर में उक्त कार्य को स्वीकृत किया जाना स्वीकार किया गया है। अतः जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-8 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.8

Conclusion of Charge No.9

आरोप संख्या-9 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि अध्यक्ष का कथन आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार्य है। अध्यक्ष, नगर पालिका परिषद बॉदा द्वारा दिनॉक 12.12.2017 से कार्य प्रारम्भ किया गया है। वार्ड नम्बर-14 स्वराज कालोनी गली नम्बर3 में कामता गिरि से बलराम सिंह के मकान तक इण्टरलाकिंग एवं नाली निर्माण का कार्य वर्ष 2018-19 के अन्तर्गत 14वे वित्त आयोग की प्राप्त धनराशि से कराये जाने की स्वीकृत वर्तमान अध्यक्ष द्वारा ही प्रदान की गयी है। उक्त कार्य की स्वीकृति मे० वी०टेल पावर कम्यू० के पक्ष में ही स्वीकृत किया गया था जिसे अधिशासी अधिकारी न०पा०परि० अतर्रा के पत्र दिनॉक 14.1.2019 द्वारा काली सूची में डाला गया था। शेष कार्य पूर्व अध्यक्ष के कार्यकाल में स्वीकृत किये गये थे। ब्लैक लिस्टेड फर्म को नगर पालिका का कार्य आवंटित/ठेके देकर अनियमितता किये जाने संबंधी तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-9 आप पर आंशिक रूप से सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.9

Conclusion of Charge No.10

आरोप संख्या-10 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि शासनादेश दिनॉक 9.6.2014 में कर्मचारियों को न्यूनतम देय धनराशि रू० 250/- प्रतिदिन की दर से निर्धारित की गयी है। जबकि पूर्व में कराये गये टेण्डर के अनुसार धनराशि रू० 295/- मात्र प्रतिदिन स्वीकृत की गयी थी। टेण्डर की स्वीकृत दर के अनुसार भुगतान किया जाना कहीं से भी शासनादेश का उल्लंघन नहीं है। स्पष्ट है कि आप द्वारा मनमाने तरीके से कर्मचारियों के भुगतान में कटौती करके उनका आर्थिक नुकसान एवं शोषण किया जा रहा है। जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-10 आप पर आंशिक रूप से सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.10

Conclusion of Charge No.11

आरोप संख्या-11 में जिला अधिकारी बॉदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि आप द्वारा श्री ओम वीर सिंह तथा श्री हेमन्त प्रसाद सफाई निरीक्षक का एक दिन (दिनॉक 25.8.2020) का वेतन काटे जाने का आदेश दिनॉक 3.9.2020 द्वारा जारी किया गया था। आप द्वारा उक्त दोनो कर्मचारियों की अनुशासनहीनता तथा स्थानीय राजनीति में लिप्त होने की शिकायत भी की गयी है। उ०प्र० पालिका केन्द्रीयत सेवा में कर्मचारियों के विरूद्ध अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही का अधिकार निदेशक स्थानीय निकाय/शासन में निहित है। आप द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारियों के विरूद्ध इन्ही प्राधिकारियों को शिकायत/संस्तुति की जानी चाहिये थी, किन्तु आप द्वारा अपने स्तर से वेतन काटे जाने का आदेश जारी कर अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र के परे कार्य किया है। जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-11 आप पर आंशिक रूप से सिद्ध होता है।

Conclusion of Charge No.11

19. In paragraph no. 27 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows-

"27. That the contents of paragraph nos. 47 and 48 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply it is submitted that the order dated 03.10.2022 has been passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the reply of the petitioner. The order dated 03.10.2022 is not reiteration of earlier order dated 25.08.2021."

20. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents has emphatically contended that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner but he did not appear. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel in this regard can only be rejected outright. After quashing of the previous order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 by this Court in writ petition of 2021, the respondent no. 1 did afford opportunities of hearing to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did appear twice before the office of the respondent no. 1 in compliance of notices and could not appear on the other dates for which reasons for non-appearance were duly communicated. As a matter of fact on 8.9.2022, the petitioner requested an adjournment with supporting documents on his being admitted to the Medical College on the ground of his illness but, apparently no adjournment was granted.

21. As far as the objection of the learned Standing Counsel with regard to consideration of ''cross-examination report' of the petitioner is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected inasmuch as the ''cross-examination report' is merely a consideration of the written reply submitted by the petitioner by a three member committee constituted by the respondent no. 2 and it cannot masquerade as a cross-examination during inquiry proceedings which are essentially quasi judicial proceedings.

22. Coming to the aspect of the alleged admission of the charges by the petitioner that has been raised by the learned counsel for the caveator, the consideration in the impugned order of each of the charges 4, 7 and 8 are as below:

"आरोप बिन्दु संख्या-4

आप द्वारा पूर्व में नोटिस दिये बिना ही तथा नकद धन लेकर सैकडों मकानों एवं दुकानों के नामांतरण की गैर कानूनी कार्यवाही की गयी है। जबकि उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 की धारा 147(1) व धारा 147(2) के अन्तर्गत नामांतरण का अधिकार अधिशासी अधिकारी के दायित्वों/ अधिकारों में निहित है।

अध्यक्ष का उत्तर/स्पष्टीकरण

उपरोक्त के सन्दर्भ में अवगत कराना है कि भवन नामांकन/नामान्तरण हेतु कार्यालय को नियमानुसार कार्यवाही किये जाने हेतु अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा कार्यालय पत्र 96/दिनांक 25.04.2019, पत्रांक 424/दिनांक 12.06.2019 व पत्रांक 906/ दिनांक 06.08.2019, पत्रांक 189/दिनांक 18.02.2021, पत्रांक 1798/दिनांक 20.02.2021 के माध्यम से निर्देशित किया गया कि प्राप्त आवेदन पत्रों का निस्तारण अविलम्ब सुनिश्चित किया जाय जिसके दृष्टिगत भवन नामांकन/नामांतरण हेतु नियमानुसार समस्त जांच प्रक्रिया निर्वहन करते हुये सम्बन्धित अधिकारी व कर्मचारी द्वारा उपरोक्त कार्य को निर्धारित समयान्तर्गत निर्वहन न करने के दृष्टिगत पालिका के सम्मानित सदस्य गणों द्वारा बोर्ड बैठक दिनांक 03/12/2018 साधारण प्रस्ताव संख्या 09 में नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 की धारा 147 के अन्तर्गत नामांतरण की कार्यवाही के सम्बन्ध में बोर्ड द्वारा व्यापक विचार विमर्श उपरांत अधोहस्ताक्षरी के कार्यकाल दिनांक 12/12/2022 तक उपरोक्त कार्य हेतु निहित होंगे। इस प्रकार अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा उक्त व्यवस्था के तहत नियमानुसार जांच प्रक्रिया के अन्तर्गत क्रमशः नियमानुसार नाम परिवर्तन किया गया।

तदनुसार भवन नामांकन/ नामान्तरण की कार्यवाही बोर्ड बैठक दिनांक 03/12/2018 साधारण प्रस्ताव संख्या 09 के तहत की गयी है उपरोक्त नामांकन/नामान्तरण में सम्बन्धित अधिकारी/कर्मचारी के जांच आख्या के आधार पर नियमानुसार निर्णय लिया गया किसी आवेदक/आवेदिका से उक्त कार्य हेतु अनैतिक धन नहीं लिया गया है। इस सम्बन्धी आवेदिक/आवेदिका द्वारा शपथ पत्र साक्ष्य के रूप में संलग्न है। जो आरोप लगाये गये है उसमें किसी भी प्रकार की तथ्यात्मक जानकारी नहीं है कि किस व्यक्ति से कितना पैसा लिया गया, यह भी स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है। उक्त आरोप राजनैतिक द्वेष भावना से प्रेरित होकर लगाया गया है जो कि असत्य एवं निराधार है।

प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्याः-

अपने उत्तर में अध्यक्ष द्वारा स्वयं स्वीकार किया गया है कि उनके द्वारा बोर्ड द्वारा पारित प्रस्ताव के आधार पर नामांतरण की कार्यवाहियां की गयी है। जबकि उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 की धारा 147(1) तथा व धारा 147(2) के अन्तर्गत नामांतरण का अधिकार अधिशासी अधिकारी के दायित्वों/अधिकारों में निहित है। इस प्रकार अध्यक्ष द्वारा नियम विरूद्ध अधिशासी अधिकारी के अधिकारों/दायित्वों का अतिक्रमण कर बिना अधिकार गैर कानूनी रूप से नामान्तरण की कार्यवाहियां की गयी हैं।

निष्कर्षः-

आरोप संख्या-4 में जिला अधिकारी बांदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि यद्यपि अध्यक्ष द्वारा बोर्ड से पारित प्रस्ताव के आधार पर नामान्तरण की कार्यवाहियां की गयी है किन्तु उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 की धारा 147(1) तथा व धारा 147(2) के अन्तर्गत नामांतरण का अधिकार अधिशासी अधिकारी के दायित्वों/अधिकारों में निहित है। इस प्रकार आप द्वारा नियम विरूद्ध अधिशासी अधिकारी के अधिकारों/दायित्वों का अतिक्रमण कर बिना अधिकार गैर कानूनी रूप से नामान्तरण की कार्यवाहियां की गयी है। अतः आरोप संख्या-4 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

आरोप बिन्दु संख्या-07

आप द्वारा दिनांक 17/12/2019 को दिये गये आदेश से श्री अनवर अली (सभासद) को एक दिन के लिये नगर पालिका परिषद बांदा का अध्यक्ष मनोनीत किया गया था, जबकि आप इसके लिये अधिकृत नहीं थे। इस संबंध में शासन के पत्र संख्या 168/नौ-6-2020, दिनांक 24/08/2020 द्वारा आपका स्पष्टीकरण मांगा गया था किन्तु अभी तक आप द्वारा अपना स्पष्टीकरण उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है।

अध्यक्ष का उत्तर/स्पष्टीकरण-

उपरोक्त के सन्दर्भ में अवगत कराना है कि शासन/ प्रशासन की नीतियों के अनुसार पूर्व से यह व्यवस्था है कि अपने किसी कार्य को समझने के लिये एक दिवस के लिये मनोनित करने की प्रणाली प्रभावी है। इसी प्रकार श्री अनवर अली सभासद के द्वारा कई बार मौखिक अनुरोध किया गया कि अध्यक्ष नगर पालिका के कार्य को समझने एवं संचालन करने हेतु एक दिन का सांकेतिक अध्यक्ष मनोनीत कर दीजिये जिससे कि अध्यक्ष के पदीय दायित्वों की जानकारी प्राप्त कर सकूं तथा जन मानस की समस्या को जान सकूं। इस हेतु कार्यालय पत्र संख्या1711/दिनांक 17.12.2019 के द्वारा श्री अनवर अली (सभासद वार्ड संख्या 11) को एक दिन का कार्यवाहक अध्यक्ष मनोनीत किया गया था जिसमें कम्प्यूटर आपरेटर की त्रुटिवश सांकेतिक शब्द पत्र में उल्लेख न होने के कारण पुनः कार्यालय पत्रांक 1720/कम्प्यू०से०/न०पा०परि० बांदा/2019-20 दिनांक 18/12/2019 द्वारा आंशिक संशोधन करते हुये तत्कालीन अधि० अधि० को पत्र प्रेषित किया गया था कि श्री अनवर अली सभासद मर्दन नाका पश्चिमी वार्ड संख्या 11 को दिनांक 18/12/2019 को सांय 7 बजे तक को मात्र सांकेतिक अध्यक्ष के रूप में कार्य करेंगें। तत्पश्चात डिस्पैच लिपिक के द्वारा डाक बही रजिस्टर में उक्त पत्रों को नियमानुसार दर्ज करते हुये सम्बन्धित को प्राप्त कराया गया जिससे की मा० सदस्य अध्यक्ष के पदीय दायित्वों की जानकारी प्राप्त कर सके उक्त पत्र में किसी भी प्रकार की वित्तीय प्रक्रिया निर्वहन करने हेतु दायित्व नहीं दिया गया और न ही पत्राचार में उल्लेख है।

प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या-

अध्यक्ष का उक्त स्पष्टीकरण स्वीकार्य नहीं है। नगर पालिका का अध्यक्ष जनता द्वारा चुना जाने वाला व्यक्ति होता है यह पद किसी के द्वारा नामित नहीं किया जाता है। अध्यक्ष का उक्त कृत्य नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है। नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 में ऐसा कोई प्राविधान नहीं है जिसके अनुसार जनता द्वारा चुना गया अध्यक्ष स्वयं किसी व्यक्ति को अध्यक्ष मनोनीत कर सके। जहां तक अध्यक्ष द्वारा अपने पत्र संख्या 1711 दिनांक 17/12/2019 में कम्प्यूटर आपरेटर की त्रुटिवश सांकेतिक शब्द का उल्लेख न होने का प्रश्न है, पत्र में हस्ताक्षर स्वयं अध्यक्ष द्वारा किया गया है जो कि उनके द्वारा भलीभांति पढ़कर ही हस्ताक्षर किया गया होगा। बाद में त्रुटि का संज्ञान होने पर उनके द्वारा संशोधित पत्र दिनांक 18/12/2019 जारी किया गया। अध्यक्ष द्वारा शासन स्तर से प्राप्त स्पष्टीकरण का भी कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया गया जो उनके स्वेच्छाचारिता का द्योतक है। अध्यक्ष द्वारा अपने पत्र दिनांक 17/12/2019 में कार्यवाहक अध्यक्ष को वित्तीय कार्य न किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई उल्लेख नहीं किया है जबकि कार्यवाहक अध्यक्ष द्वारा में अनुराग इन्टरप्राइजेज द्वारा आपूर्तित स्ट्रीट लाईट के बिल रूपये 3280030-00 के भुगतान की स्वीकृति दिनांक 18/12/2019 को अपने हस्ताक्षर से प्रदान की गयी है। अध्यक्ष का यह कथन कि उन्हें किसी प्रकार की वित्तीय प्रक्रिया निर्वहन हेतु दायित्व नहीं दिया गया स्वतः मिथ्या सिद्ध हो जाता है।

स्पष्ट है कि अध्यक्ष का उक्त कृत्य नियम विरूद्ध, मनमाना तथा उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 का खुला उल्लंघन है।

निष्कर्ष-

आरोप संख्या-7 में जिला अधिकारी बांदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि अध्यक्ष का उक्त स्पष्टीकरण स्वीकार्य नहीं है। नगर पालिका का अध्यक्ष जनता द्वारा चुना जाने वाला व्यक्ति होता है यह पद किसी के द्वारा नामित नहीं किया जाता है। अध्यक्ष का उक्त कृत्य नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है। उक्त अधिनियम में ऐसा कोई प्राविधान नहीं है जिसके अनुसार जनता द्वारा चुना गया अध्यक्ष स्वयं किसी व्यक्ति को अध्यक्ष मनोनीत कर सके। आप द्वारा शासन स्तर से प्राप्त स्पष्टीकरण का भी कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया गया जो आपके स्वेच्छाचारिता का द्योतक है। कार्यवाहक अध्यक्ष द्वारा मे० अनुराग इन्टरप्राइजेज द्वारा आपूर्तित स्ट्रीट लाईट के बिल रूपये 3280030-00 के भुगतान की स्वीकृति दिनांक 18/12/2019 को अपने हस्ताक्षर से प्रदान की गयी है। आपका यह कथन कि उन्हें किसी प्रकार की वित्तीय प्रक्रिया निर्वहन हेतु दायित्व नहीं दिया गया स्वतः मिथ्या सिद्ध हो जाता है। आपका उक्त कृत्य नियम विरूद्ध, मनमाना तथा उ०प्र० नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916 का खुला उल्लंघन है। अतः जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-7 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।

आरोप बिन्दु संख्या-08

आप द्वारा डी०एम० कालोनी में मुख्य मार्ग से श्री अशोक सिंह गौर के कैम्पस के अन्दर इन्टरलाकिंग का कार्य कराकर निकाय/राज्य वित्त आयोग की धनराशि से मु० 186218-00 मात्र का भुगतान किया गया है। इस प्रकार स्पष्ट है कि निजी भूमि पर कराये गये कार्य में हुयी व्यय धनराशि का आगणन तैयार कराने एवं उक्त आगणन गठित करने हेतु अवर अभियन्ता, सहायक अभियन्ता तथा अधिशासी अधिकारी भी दोषी पाये गये है।

अध्यक्ष का उत्तर/स्पष्टीकरण-

उपरोक्त के क्रम में सादर अवगत कराना है कि नगर में निर्माण कार्य (सड़क/नाली) जन मानस की आवश्यकता/प्रार्थना पत्र के आधार पर नियमानुसार निर्माण कार्य किये जाते है। सन्दर्भित स्थल में सागर कोचिंग संचालक श्री शिव सागर प्रजापति द्वारा अपने प्रार्थना पत्र के माध्यम से जी०आई०सी० मैदान में श्री अशोक सिंह गौर के पास में जल भराव के कारण कोचिंग में पढ़ने वाले छात्र/छात्राओं को आवागमन में बाधा उत्पन्न होती है। जिसके लिये मार्ग निर्माण कराने की मांग की गयी। उक्त समस्या के दृष्टिगत वर्णित स्थल पर नियमानुसार इन्टरलाकिंग रोड निर्माण कार्य कराया गया। जांच समिति की आख्या दिनांक 25.11.2020 में उक्त बिन्दु का किसी प्रकार उल्लेख नहीं है। उक्त इण्टर लाकिंग रोड निर्माण कार्य की शिकायत का खन्डन श्री प्रकाश द्विवेदी, मा० विधायक सदर बांदा द्वारा नगर मजिस्ट्रेट बांदा को सम्बोधित एवं अधिशासी अधिकारी नगर पालिका परिषद बांदा को पृष्ठांकित अपने पत्रांक एमएलए/4306 दिनांक 29.09.2020 द्वारा किया गया है कि मा० मुख्यमंत्री जी के यहां की गयी शिकायत में उक्त बिन्दु को वापस लेता हूं। क्योंकि वहां पर बहुत से परिवार रहते है। बरसात में नगर पालिका के नाले का पानी वहां भर जाता है। बहुत बच्चे वहां कोचिंग पढ़ने जाते है। तथा उक्त रास्ते पर अनेकों परिवारों का आवागमन रहता है।

प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या-

अध्यक्ष द्वारा अपने उत्तर में कहा गया है कि मा० विधायक सदर बांदा द्वारा इस बिन्दु पर अपनी शिकायत वापस ले ली गयी है। शिकायत को वापस लिये जाने से निजी भूमि पर नगर पालिका के धन से कराये गये इण्टरलाकिंग के कार्य धनराशि रूपये 186218-00 का अपव्यय छिपाया नहीं जा सकता है। अध्यक्ष द्वारा अपने उत्तर में उक्त कार्य को स्वीकृत किया जाना स्वीकार किया गया है।

निष्कर्षः-

आरोप संख्या-8 में जिला अधिकारी बांदा की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि मा० विधायक सदर बांदा द्वारा इस बिन्दु पर अपनी शिकायत वापस ले ली गयी है। शिकायत को वापस लिये जाने से निजी भूमि पर नगर पालिका के धन से कराये गये इण्टरलाकिंग के कार्य धनराशि रूपये 186218-00 का अपव्यय छिपाया नहीं जा सकता है। आप द्वारा अपने उत्तर में उक्त कार्य को स्वीकृत किया जाना स्वीकार किया गया है। अतः जिलाधिकारी की प्रतिपरीक्षण आख्या के आधार पर आरोप संख्या-8 आप पर सिद्ध होता है।"

23. In charge no. 4, it is alleged that without giving prior notice, and after taking cash amounts, mutation of hundreds of houses and shops have been done which is illegal whereas under Section 147(1) and 147(2) of the Act of 1916, the Authority to order mutation is the Executive Officer.

24. In its reply to this charge, the petitioner stated that the petitioner by office letter dated 25.4.2019, 12.6.2019, 6.8.2019, 8.2.2021 and 20.2.2021 directed that the disposal of the applications received should be ensured without delay and keeping that in mind, nomination/mutation of houses which were not being done by the concerned officers and employees within the prescribed time, after conducting the requisite enquiry, the members of the Nagar Palika Parishad in its meeting dated 3.12.2018 by its ordinary resolution no. 09 resolved to vest in the President the authority to effect mutations under Section 147 of the Act of 1916 for the period of his term till 12.12.2022. It has been stated that acting under the aforesaid resolution of the Parishad, the mutation of names were done. It has further been stated that the nomination/mutation was done on the basis of the enquiry report of the concerned officer/employee and no illegal amount was charged from any of the applicants. The petitioner also enclosed with his reply, the affidavits of the various applicants. The provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1916 are as follows:

"147. Amendment and alteration of list.- (1) The Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it may at any time alter or amend the assessment list, -

(a) by entering therein the name of any person or any property which ought to have been entered or any property which has become liable to taxation after the authentication of the assessment list; or

(b) by substituting therein for the name of owner or occupier of any property the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the property; or

(c) by enhancing the valuation of, or assessment on any property which has become incorrectly valued or assessed or which, by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, has been incorrectly valued or assessed; or

(d) by re-valuing or re-assessing any property the value of which has been increased by additions or alterations to buildings; or

(e) where the percentage on the annual value at which any tax is to be levied has been altered by the Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it under the provisions of Section 136, by making a corresponding alteration in the amount of the tax payable in each case; or

(f) by reducing, upon the application of the owner- or on satisfactory evidence that the owner is traceable and the need for reduction established, upon its own initiative, the valuation of any building which has been wholly or partly demolished or destroyed, or

(g) by correcting any Clerical, arithmetical or other apparent error.

(2) Provided that Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it shall give at least one month's notice to any person interested of any alteration which the Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it proposes to make under clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) and of the date on which the alteration will be made.

(3) The provisions on sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 applicable to the obligations thereunder mentioned shall, so far as may be, apply to any objection made in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (2) and to any application made under clause (f) of sub-section (1).

(4) Every alteration made under sub-section (1) shall be authenticated by the signature or signatures of the person or persons authorized by Section 144 and subject to the result of an appeal under Section 160, shall take effect from the date on which the next instalment falls due."

25. As reflected in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 147, the authority to alter or amend the assessment list vests in the Municipality or the Executive Officer who may be authorized by it. As per the explanation proffered by the petitioner, he had acted pursuant to a resolution of the Municipality passed at a meeting of the Board.

26. As far as alleged admission with regard to charge no. 7, the charge states that by an order of the petitioner dated 17.12.2019 a Corporator, Anwar Ali was nominated as the President of the Nagar Palika Parishad for one day whereas the petitioner is not authorized for the same. In this regard the State Government had sent a letter dated 24.8.2020 asking for the petitioner's explanation but no explanation was submitted by him.

27. In his reply, it has been stated in accordance with the policy of the State Government, there is an existing arrangement for understanding the nature of the work, and accordingly nomination can be done for one day. Therefore, Anwar Ali, Corporator, in view of his repeated oral requests for understanding the working of the post of President of the Nagar Palika, that he may be symbolically nominated as President for one day so that he could understand the responsibilities of the post of President and understand the problems of the citizens, a letter dated 17.12.2019 was issued nominating Anwar Ali, Corporator as an Officiating President for one day. However, due to error of the computer operator, the word 'symbolic' was not mentioned. Therefore, another letter dated 18.12.2019 was issued making partial amendment which was presented to the then executive officer nominating the aforesaid Corporator on 18.12.2019 as a symbolic President till 7 PM on that date thereafter the dispatch clerk entered the same in the dispatch register and got the same received by the concerned. It has further been stated that under that letter no responsibility was given for undertaking any financial proceedings and neither is the same reflected in any correspondence.

28. With regard to the allegation of admission of charge no. 8, the charge reads that the petitioner got interlocking work of private road done from the main road to the campus of Ashok Singh Gaur in DM Colony and an amount of Rs. 1,86,218/- was paid from the account of the local body/State Financial Commission. This reflects that the work was done on private land for which certain officers have also been found guilty.

29. In his reply, the petitioner has stated that the construction work in the town for roads are made due to requirements of the citizens and on basis of applications. In the referred place, on the application made by Shiv Sagar Prajapati who runs Sagar Coaching, that students coming for coaching are obstructed due to water logging and therefore, the road be constructed, as per rules, the interlocking road construction was done. It was stated that in the report of the enquiry committee dated 25.11.2020, nothing is mentioned on this aspect. It is stated that the member of the legislative assembly who made complaint, has himself stated that he is taking back the complaint on the ground that there are many families in that place and during rains water from the drains of the Nagar Palika flood that place; that several children go to study in the coaching center and several families are using that road.

30. As is evident from the aforementioned charges and explanation submitted by the petitioner, clarifications have been submitted by the petitioner which, prima facie, cannot be considered to be an admission of guilt in respect of the charges actually framed against the petitioner. The charges of wrong doing have not been admitted at all but rather explanations have been proffered which reflect, prima facie, acknowledgement on part of the petitioner of actions undertaken in exercise of purported authority conferred by law.

31. This Bench in the matter of Shaila Tahir has observed as follows:

"21. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), the Supreme Court held that removal of a duly elected member/president of Municipal Council on basis of proved misconduct, is a proceeding quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play and a proper opportunity of placing the defence is a must. It was also held that an elected official of a local self government holds a much higher pedestal as compared to a government servant. If a government servant cannot be removed without a full-fledged enquiry, there is no gainsaying that in case of an elected representative, holding of full-fledged enquiry is imperative in law. A more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required-

30. There can also be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that removal of a duly elected Member on the basis of proved misconduct is a quasi-judicial proceeding in nature. (Vide: Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2158). This view stands further fortified by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395 and Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play and strict compliance should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision providing for the same. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office bearer.

31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office bearer can be removed without holding a full fledged inquiry.

32. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government employees, for the reason, that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required.

22. The Supreme Court also held that removal of elected person casts stigma upon him and takes away his valuable statutory rights. The result of his removal is that not only he, but his electoral college is also deprived of the representation by him. Moreover, he also stands disqualified to contest the election for a stipulated period.

23. In the instant case, the petitioner, who is President of Municipality, would stand disqualified from contesting a re-election as President or Member for a period of five years from the date of her removal in view of Section 48 (4) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [the removal being under clause (a) and sub-clause (vi), (vii) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 48].

24. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 contemplates making of such inquiry as may be considered necessary by the State Government after considering the explanation that may be offered by the President. An order of removal should be in writing and contain reasons for removal of the President from office. The said provision is quoted below for convenience of reference:-

(2-A) After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office.

25. In Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others6 it was contended that sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 was deleted by subsequent amendments and is no more part of the statute. Therefore, no inquiry as per the said provision is required to be held. The argument was repelled after considering the amendments made to Section 48 from time to time. The Court relied on another Division Bench judgement of this Court in Girish Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others7 in holding that the said provision continue to exist and that there was error in numbering the sections while making subsequent amendments. It was concluded that the inquiry under Section 48 (2-A) is mandatory, although its nature and scope will depend on fact of each case. The relevant part of the said judgement is quoted in extenso:-

Section 48(2-A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 contemplates that after considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office.

By U.P. Act No.VI of 2004 another sub-section (2-A) was added, which is to the following effect:-

"In Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, after sub-section (2) the following sub-section shall be inserted namely: "(2A) where in an inquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, if a President or a Vice President is prima-facie found to be guilty on any of the grounds referred to in sub-section (2), he shall cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, function and duties of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice issued to him under sub-section (2), be exercised and performed by the District Magistrate or by any other nominated by him not below the rank of the Deputy Collector."

By U.P. Act No.II of 2005, Section 48 was again amended which amendment was deemed to have come into force with effect from 27th February, 2004 which was the date on which U.P. Act No.VI of 2004 was published in the gazette. In sub-section (2) of Section 48, a proviso was inserted, which is to the following effect:-

"Provided that where the State Government has reason to believe that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie guilty on any of the grounds of this sub-section resulting in the issuance of the show cause notice and proceedings under this sub-section he shall, from the date of issuance of the show cause notice containing charges, cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice issued to him under this sub-section and finalization of the proceedings under sub-section (2A) and the said powers, functions and duties of the President during the period of such ceasing, shall be exercised, performed and discharged by the District Magistrate or an officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector."

Sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 as inserted on 27th February, 2004 by the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2004 (U.P. Act No.VI of 2004) was omitted.

11. The submission of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, that after deletion of Section 48(2-A) now there is no provision for holding an inquiry by the State Government needs to be considered first.

12. Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 48 which was inserted by U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1964 was to the following effect, "After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office.". The above sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 has not been deleted by any subsequent amendment. What has been deleted by U.P. Act No.II of 2005 was sub-section (2-A) which was inserted by U.P. Act No.VI of 2004 wherein it was provided that where in an inquiry held, if a President or a Vice-President is prima-facie found to be guilty, he shall cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President or a Vice-President until he is exonerated of the charges. Sub-Section (2-A), which was inserted by U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1964 was an entirely different provision from one which has been inserted by U.P. Act No.VI of 2004. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 which was inserted by U.P. Act No.VI of 2004 was with regard to cessation of financial and administrative powers of the President. The State legislature being not satisfied with the scheme of sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 as introduced by U.P. Act No.VI of 2004 came up to the same effect regarding cessation of financial and administrative powers by inserting a proviso after Section 48(2) which proviso contains more drastic provision regarding cessation of financial and administrative powers and when proviso was inserted by U.P. Act No.II of 2005, the earlier sub-section (2-A) providing for cessation of financial and administrative powers was omitted. Thus Section 48(2-A) as was inserted by U.P. Act No.XXVI of 1964 still continues in the statute which obliges the State Government to consider the explanation and to hold an inquiry in the matter.

13. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girish Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 AWC-6-6051, after considering the provisions of Section 48 as amended from time to time, has taken the same view which we have taken above. Following was laid down by the Division Bench in paragraph 20 of the said judgment:-

"20. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered opinion that insertion of sub-section (2A) in Section 48 of the Act after sub-section (2) by U.P. Act No.6 of 2004, does not, in any manner, either omit or substitute the earlier sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act which was inserted by U.P. Act No.27 of 1964 and the State Legislature appears to have committed a mistake in numbering the sub-section that was added by U.P. Act No.6 of 2004. However, the mistake that had occurred stood removed by the subsequent amendment made by the State Legislature in Section 48 by U.P. Act No.2 of 2005 as sub-section (2A) that was inserted in Section 48 of the Act by U.P. Act No.6 of 2004 was omitted with effect from 27.2.2004."

Thus according to scheme of Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 after issuance of show cause notice under Section 48(2), the State Government is obliged to consider the explanation and also to hold such inquiry as it may deem necessary.

26. What is nature and scope of inquiry which is required to be held under Section 48 was considered by this Court in Umesh Baijal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another8. It has been held that there could be cases where the charges are admitted and in which event, it would not be necessary to hold a regular inquiry and examine witnesses etc. There may be cases where the allegations are based on complaint made by certain persons. In such cases, if the State intends to rely on affidavit filed by the complainant, it has to give opportunity of hearing to the Chairperson to cross-examine the complainant. In a given case, the allegations may be of a very serious nature and which have to be proved by documentary as well as oral evidence and in such cases, full fledged inquiry would be required, as merely calling for explanation and considering the same would not meet the requirements of law. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are as follows:-

"13. Thus, it is evident that if a Chairman is removed under these provisions, it would have a very serious repercussion and consequence not only on the Chairman but also on the constituency, which he represented because he is being removed from the membership also, therefore, it cannot be permissible in law to remove him without complying with the requirement of law, as required under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act, 1916 provides for a procedure of removal stipulating that after considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove him. The law does not permit or give unfettered powers to the State Government for passing an order of removal of the Chairman merely after considering his explanation to the show cause. It would depend upon the facts of each case as to whether an enquiry is required. There may be a case of admission by the President himself or the case against him is of such a nature for which he can furnish no explanation or the facts of a case are so admitted or admittedly such that no explanation is required at all, in such eventuality, it will not be necessary to hold a regular enquiry and examine the witnesses etc. giving an opportunity of cross-examination of the witness. There may be a case where the State is considering the affidavits filed by certain persons complaining against the misconduct of the Chairman, if State wants to take into consideration the said affidavits and in his explanation the Chairman denies the allegations, the affidavit cannot be relied upon without giving an opportunity to the Chairman to cross-examine the deponents, as required under the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the reason that the Code itself is nothing but codification of the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Order XIX, Rule 2 of the Code become mandatory.

39. Thus, in view of the above, it cannot be held that in each and every case, non-observance of principles of natural justice would vitiate the order. It has to be understood in the context and facts-situation of each case and requirement of statutory Rules applicable therein. However, in a given case, if the allegations are of a, serious nature and has to be proved on a documentary as well as on oral evidence, it is desirable to have a fulfledged enquiry for the reason that removal only on asking the explanation and consideration thereof, would not be sufficient to meet the requirement of law unless the facts are admitted or undeniable. It is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula as in what cases the fulfledged enquiry is to be held and in what cases removal is permissible on asking office bearers to furnish the explanation to the charges. It will depend on the facts of an individual case."

27. In Sanjeev Agrawal (supra), after considering the Division Bench judgment in Umesh Baijal and another Division Bench judgement in Shamim Ahmad (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P. and another9, it was concluded as follows:-

10. Thus, in our view, it is clear that once an explanation is submitted by the President denying the charges, it is incumbent upon the State Government to make "such enquiry as it may consider necessary" before passing an order of removal. The word "inquiry" contemplates investigation. Therefore, where the President denies the charges and offers his explanation, the State Government is required to consider his explanation. If the State Government is satisfied with the explanation offered by the President, in that case, nothing further is required to be done other than passing a consequential order dropping the proceedings. However, if the State Government is not satisfied with the explanation, in that case, the State Government is required to enquire into the matter by holding a full-fledged enquiry.

28. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others, the Supreme Court also considered the issue as to whether recording of reasons is mandatory while passing an order of removal. The Supreme Court placed reliance on its previous judgements in case of Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India10, Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd11 and thereafter concluded by holding as follows:-

46. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the `inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

29. The quotation from Krishna Swami (supra) relied upon in the said judgment reads thus:-

"Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21."

30. In Sant Lal Gupta (supra), it was held as follows:-

"27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice - delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice.

"3. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind."

The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected."

31. The consistent judicial opinion thus is that recording of reasons in writing is not merely an attribute of the principles of natural justice but also essence of transparency and fairness in decision making process. It has been held to be a hallmark of sound and objective exercise of power. An order bereft of reasons violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution."

32. In this backdrop, the impugned order dated 3.10.2022 reflects that no enquiry as envisaged in Section 48(2A) of the Act of 1916 was conducted by the respondent no. 1. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir12, the Supreme Court had observed that if a Government servant cannot be removed without holding full fledged enquiry, there is no gainsaying that in case of elected representative holding of full fledged enquiry is imperative in law and that a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required. The order of removal casts a stigma on the elected persons and takes away his valuable statutory rights. The result is not only the elected person but his electoral college is also deprived of the representation by him. Moreover, he also stands disqualified from contesting a re-election for stipulated period.

33. Sub-section (4) of Section 48 reads as follows:

"(4) A President removed under sub-section (2-A) shall also cease to be a member of the Municipality and in case of removal on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (a) or sub-clause (vi), (vii) or (viii) of clause (b) of subsection (2) shall not be eligible for re-election as President or member for a period of five years from the date of his removal."

In the instant case, the petitioner, who is President of Municipality, would stand disqualified from contesting a re-election as President or Member for a period of five years from the date of her removal in view of Section 48 (4) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [the removal being under clause (a) and sub-clause (vi), (vii) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 48].

34. It is pertinent to mention here that after the judgment of this Court on 16.12.2021 in the writ petition of 2021, no such inquiry was held by respondent no.1 in which witnesses were examined, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and, the material documents, if any, filed before the Inquiring Authority were taken into consideration. As held in the aforesaid case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir, the procedure for removal of an elected representative of the people from his office is more exacting and onerous than even disciplinary proceedings held against government officials. We have dwelt at length on the liability of respondent no.1 in conducting an appropriate inquiry in respect of matters of removal of a President of a Nagar Palika Parishad in the aforesaid judgment of Shaila Tahir. The so-called 'cross-examination report' of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 07.05.2021 by a three member Committee constituted by the District Magistrate cannot meet the requirement of law, which is of conducting a full-fledged inquiry into the charges against an elected representative of the people under the provisions of the Act of 1916. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 reflects that the conclusions therein are based entirely on the 'cross-examination report'. The so-called 'admissions' that have been attributed to the petitioner in respect of charge nos.4, 7 and 8 are not admissions of guilt but, prima facie, they are an acknowledgment of the petitioner of action undertaken lawfully with explanation that could only be evaluated after confronting the petitioner with documents and material on record during his testimony in examination/cross-examination in a duly constituted inquiry proceeding.

35. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The powers and authority of the petitioner are restored. It will, however, be open for respondent no.1 to initiate such proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, as may be permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

A. V. Singh/SK

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)