MOHD. AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Petitioner Mohd. Akhtar, is the President of the Municipal Board, Manglaur, district Saharanpur. It appears that certain members of the Municipal Board lodged a complaint against him to the State Govt. The State Govt. passed on the complaint to the DM Saharanpur for a report. An enquiry was made by the SDM, Roorkee and he submitted a report. In this report the SDM stated that during the enquiry the Petitioner had admitted that a sum of Rs. 1200/ -, which was taken as advance from certain toll barriers, was deposited late. The report of the SDM was forwarded by the DM to the State Govt. along with a covering letter. The Petitioner was thereupon served with a charge -sheet Under Sec. 48(2)(b)(vi) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The charge was that the Petitioner had embezzled a sum of Rs. 1200/ - collected from certain octroi barriers and had wrongfully utilised the amount for his own benefit for a period of three months. The Petitioner submitted a written explanation denying the charge of embezzlement. He explained that the money was withdrawn by the Secretary and remained in his custody all along until it was deposited in the Bank. The State Govt. was not satisfied with this explanation and passed an order dated March 31, 1970 Under Sec. 48(2A) of the Act removing the Petitioner from his office. The present petition is directed against that order.

(3.) The impugned order has been attacked on various grounds. The first ground of attack is that the charge on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed is different from the charge as disclosed in the charge -sheet. According to the charge -sheet the Petitioner had himself embezzled the sum of Rs. 1200/ - and had wrongfully used it for a period of three months. In the impugned order it has been stated that the Petitioner was instrumental in the amount being temporarily embezzled. The second ground is that the State Govt. had taken into consideration, while passing the impugned order, the report of the SDM, Roorkee and of the DM, Saharanpur but these documents were not disclosed in the charge -sheet nor was the Petitioner confronted with them and he was thus denied the opportunity of meeting the case against him. The third ground is that no charge of misconduct as contemplated by Sec. 48(2)(b)(vi) could be said to have been established against the Petitioner.