SATISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by the respondent No. 2, removing the petitioner from the post of Member of Ward No. 9 Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilkhuwa, district Ghaziabad.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was elected as a Member of said Nagar Palika in the election held on 23.11.1999 and had been working as a President of various Committees under the provisions of U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the Act 1916). As a President of the Committee, he had passed certain orders, and brought certain informations and unearthed several irregularities adopted by the employees of the Municipality, and in particular, he raised the grievance against respondent No. 5, the clerk of the Municipality for not maintaining the minutes book of the Board's meeting on 20.12.2000. On his complaint, an enquiry was directed against the respondent No. 5 by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 16.3.2001. The respondent No. 5 made a complaint dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure-2) to respondent No. 4 as well as to No. 6 against the petitioner, alleging that on 20.4.2001 at 2.20 p.m., in the premises of the Municipal Board the petitioner had threatened him and pressurised and told that he would see him as he was always siding with the Chairman. But, subsequently he told that whatever he wanted to tell him, he would say so in the Board's meeting. Subsequently another retired employee Mahesh Chandra entered the same room and petitioner told him that if he wanted to get his pension he should throw the dirts in the house of the Executive Officer and that of the Chairman. He should pressurise the said persons and if he does so petitioner would support him. Petitioner told the retired employee Mahesh Chandra that the Executive Officer and Chairman had misappropriated the amount of tax collected to the tune of Rs. 18 lacs and they had made illegal payments to the contractors. He further said that he did not like the employees involved in politics. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner was involved in caste based politics and dividing the employees for his personal gain. He is not a man of good character. He can cause any harm to the complainant, even physical harm.

(3.) The said complaint was forwarded to the respondent No. 2, through the District Magistrate, and the Chairman of the Nagar Palika respondent No. 6, wherein, it was also mentioned that the petitioner was creating hurdle in the Board's meeting and all the employees except few had been harassed by him. On the basis of the said complaint and in exercise of the power under Section 32 of the Act 1916, District Magistrate vide order dated 2.5.2001 directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint dated 25.4.2001 and submit his report. In pursuance of the same, the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to appear before him vide letter dated 2nd May, 2001 (Annexure-C.A. 1) to appear on 9.5.2001. On 9.5.2001 petitioner attended the office of the Enquiry Officer but the Enquiry Officer was not available. However, it is alleged by the petitioner that he was not served the copy of the complaint and in his letter dated 9.5.2001, he enquired from the Enquiry Officer as on what complaint the enquiry was being conducted, nor he was aware as under what circumstances he had been asked to appear before him the copy of the documents may be furnished so that he may file the effective reply. Vide letter dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure-C.A. 3) the petitioner was informed that it was a legal enquiry and as per the provisions of law, the copy of the complaint cannot be furnished to him. However, he was given three days' time to inspect the same and submit his reply by 16th May, 2001. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 26.5.2001 (Annexure-4) denying the allegations and further submitted that respondent No. 5 was responsible for not recording the minutes of the Board's meeting in accordance with law. But, he claimed that there must be a proper enquiry. Evidence should be led and petitioner should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. However, the respondent No. 5 wrote a letter dated 9.5.2001 to the Enquiry Officer (Annexure-5) that he did not want to lead any evidence and say anything whatever he wanted to say, as he had already stated in his complaint dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure-2). On 16.6.2001 Tax Officer of Nagar Palika also submitted a written reply (Annexure-6) before the Enquiry Officer, wherein he stated that the petitioner has asked the respondent No. 5 as, to why he was not recording the minutes of the Board's meeting correctly and told him in his presence that petitioner would not spare respondent No. 5 easily as he would lodge complaint with the higher authority and would bring a motion in the Board's meeting against him.