BHAGWAN DAS BARNWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was elected as President of the Municipal Board. Mirzapur in the general elections held in October, 1953. On 17-1-1955, a notice of intention to move a no confidence motion against the applicant was made to the District Magistrate of Mirzapur. 17-2-1955, was fixed for the meeting for the consideration of the no-confidence motion. The motion was voted and lost. The meeting was presided over by the Civil Judge. Two of the members of the Board alleged that they were forcibly abducted and detained and consequently could not participate in the meeting for no-confidence held, on 17-2-1955. Investigation was started against the applicant by the police on the statement of the two members. On 1-3-1965 at about 3:00 p. m. the applicant received a communication from the district Magistrate, Mirzapur purporting to contain the charge-sheet against the applicant. He was called upon to furnish an explanation to the charges. The charges indicated that the applicant was asked to explain the conduct which was considered as an act of gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as President of the Board by the government. On the same date an order of the Governor suspending the applicant with immediate effect dated 25-2-1955 was communicated to the applicant. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the State Government as well as the order of suspension passed by the Governor and was finally allowed by this Court on 12-4-1955. The proceedings under Section 48 initiated by the State Government against the applicant were quashed and an order was issued by this Court prohibiting the State Government from proceeding with the proceedings under Section 48, Municipalities Act. The ground on which the petition was allowed was that the allegations, made, against the applicant did not amount to misconduct in the discharge of his duties as the facts alleged had nothing to do with the duties of the applicant as the President of the Municipal Board.

(2.) FRESH proceedings under Section 48 (2) (b) (vi ). Municipalities Act have been started against the applicant. On 28-4-1955 the applicant received a copy of a fresh charge-sheet dated 25th april with a covering letter to the District Magistrate asking the ' applicant to give an explanation to the acts of misconduct alleged against him. An order of suspension was also communicated to the applicant. After the applicant had been served with! a charge-sheet and an order of suspension had been passed, the present petition was filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to the opposite parties , quashing the proceedings initiated by the Government against the applicant and the suspension order dated 25-4-1955, and a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties directing them not to conduct any inquiry on the basis of the charge-sheet. The main contention of the applicant is that the Charges on which proceedings have been taken against the applicant under Section 48 (2) (b) (vi), Municipalities Act do not come within the ambit of Section 48. They, on no reasonable interpretation, amount to misconduct under Section 48.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed in the case and it is urged that the acts alleged against the applicant can amount to gross misconduct and it cannot be said that they bear no relation to acts which may constitute gross misconduct under Section 48 and consequently it is not open to this court to interfere with the proceedings at this stage.