JUDGMENT D. S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel of the petitioner. Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 9, at length and in detail.
2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 27th January, 1999. passed by the State Government, the respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is Annexure-'6' to the petition. The impugned order, which has been passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. (hereinafter called the 'Act'), purports to remove the petitioner from the office of Chairman. Nagar Panchayat, Bhatparrani in the district of Deoria.
3. Taking cognizance of certain complaints received by it, the respondent No. 1 formed an opinion that during the performance of his duties as Chairman, the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Act warranting action under Section 48 of the Act. It, therefore, issued notice dated 25th October, 1997 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from his office. The notice was served on the petitioner on 13th November. 1997, which was duly received by the petitioner on 20th November, 1997. From the pleadings of the parties before the Court, it transpires that subsequent to the filing of reply by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Deoria, the respondent No. 2 sent comments on the reply of the petitioner. These comments are before the Court as Annexure-CA-II, appended to the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Rajesh Kumar Rai, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Salempur, Deoria, the respondent No. 3, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 27th January. 1999.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law on following two counts-
(a) that the impugned order is founded on material, namely, the report of the respondent No. 3 and the comments of respondent No. 2, which was not disclosed to the petitioner. This was in violation of the principles of natural Justice resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner ; and
(b) that the impugned order does not disclose reasons.
5. Countering the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner, learned counsel representing the respondents submit that the material relied upon by the respondent No. 1 for passing the impugned order was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the submission that the impugned order is founded on undisclosed material cannot be sustained. Regarding the second ground of attack, namely, lack of reasons, the learned counsels contend that the respondent No. 1 was not required to give reasons.
6. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it is asserted that the respondent No. 3 submitted a report and the respondent No. 2 submitted his note (Samiksha). But, neither the copy of the report of the respondent No. 3 nor the copy of the note (Samiksha) submitted by the respondent No. 2 was supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the petition, it is asserted that after the respondent No. 2 had sent his note (Samiksha), no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1.
7. The averments of the petitioner made in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the petition have been replied In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The said paragraph is as follows :
" 14. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 12, 13, 14 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity to submit his reply against the charges framed and to submit evidence in support of his case and after having received reply of the petitioner, the same was sent to the State Government along with the comments of the authorities concerned for necessary action and the State Government after having considered each and every aspect of the matter, removed the petitioner from his pose which is perfectly just and legal."
8. The reply to the averments of the petitioners made in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the petition given in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, extracted above, does not, in the opinion of the Court, constitute denial of the plea of the petitioner either specifically or by necessary implication. Therefore, the averments contained in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the petition cannot be taken to have been denied by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to notice that no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Therefore, in the absence of any counter-affidavit, it has to be presumed that the respondent No. 1 does not dispute the averments of the petitioner made in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the petition.
10. It is also relevant to notice that in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and, 3, it is stated that after receiving the reply to show-cause notice, charges were framed against the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit the evidence, and that he was also accorded opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer.
11. Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit has been replied by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of his rejoinder-affidavit. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner asserts that it is patently wrong to say that the charges were framed against the petitioner. No charge-sheet as such was served on the petitioner, although, after submission of reply to show-cause notice, the respondent No. 3 had sent a letter dated 16th March. 1998 requiring him to submit evidence in support of his reply to the show-cause 'notice. The petitioner did submit evidence.
12. From the pleadings noticed above, inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner was not given copy of the report of respondent No. 3, and that he was also not supplied the copy of note (Samiksha) submitted by the respondent No. 2. It is also clear that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing subsequent to the filing of his reply to the show-cause notice.
13. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it is founded on the comments and notes (Samiksha) submitted to the respondent No. 1 by the respondent No. 2, which were not supplied to the petitioner. At no point of time was the petitioner warned that the comments and notes (Samiksha) of respondent No. 2 will be relied upon by the respondent No. 1. Thus, the well known principle of natural Justice, which required the respondent No. 1 to give opportunity to the petitioner, was flagrantly violated rendering the impugned order wholly unsustainable in law.
14. For proper appreciation of the second contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner regarding lack of reasons in the impugned order, it is relevant to notice the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act which reads thus :
"2A. 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 :
Provided that in a case where the State Government has issued notice in respect of any ground mentioned in clause (a), or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) (vii) or (viii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2), it may instead of removing him give him a warning."
15. A bare perusal of sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act. quoted above, reveals that written recording of reasons in support of the order is a condition precedent for passing the order removing the President from his office. The State Government may remove the President from his office only for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the absence of reasons recorded in writing the order purporting to remove the President from his office would be contrary to the statutory mandate contained in sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the Act. The Court has read and re-read the impugned order dated 27th January, 1999 but has not been able to locate any reason in support of the order. The first part of the order recites charges against the petitioner, second part of the order reproduces the reply given by the petitioner, and the third part of the order quotes the comments of the respondent No. 2 submitted to the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the order gives conclusion followed by the order removing the petitioner from the office of Chairman. No part of the impugned order records reasons. The impugned order contains only conclusion.
16. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents contend that the order does satisfy the requirement of written recording of reasons in support of the order.
17. In its decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled as below :
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."
18. Tested on the above touchstone, the impugned order falls to satisfy the statutory requirement of recording reasons in writing. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be struck on this count also.
19. For what has been said above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th January, 1999, a copy whereof is Annexure-'6' to the petition, is quashed. There is no order as to costs.