JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Nitin Chandra Mishra, for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents and Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu for respondent no. 4.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Banda (for short, 'the Parishad') on 01.12.2017. A complaint was made against the petitioner and Executive Officer of the Parishad, alleging irregularities and defalcation of accounts before the District Magistrate, Banda/respondent no. 3, who forwarded the same to the Commissioner of the Division/respondent no. 2. The Commissioner on 12.06.2019 constituted a three-member Committee to inquire into the allegations. The Committee comprised of Assistant Accounts Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar and Joint Development Commissioner. The Committee submitted its report dated 06.08.2019 (first report) to the Commissioner. It appears that in the meanwhile, another complaint was preferred against the petitioner before the Commissioner, who took cognizance of the same and referred the same to a single member committee, comprising of Joint Development Commissioner, who was the Chairman of the earlier Committee. The Joint Development Commissioner submitted a report (second report) dated 21.10.2019 on 15 charges to the Commissioner and the latter forwarded the same to the State Government vide letter dated 23.10.2019. The State Government acting under section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short, 'the Act') issued a show cause on 9 charges on 11.02.2020, served on the petitioner on 07.06.2020. The petitioner submitted his reply on 12.06.2020. The State Government under section 48(2) of the Act, after consideration of the reply, proceeded to cease the administrative/financial power of the petitioner on 29.10.2020 and a consequential order dated 30.10.2020 by the District Magistrate appointing Deputy Collector as administrator in the Parishad.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner broadly raised three contentions:-