DAMODAR DASS ATTRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of suspension dated 9-8-1956 passed against the Petitioner and proceedings Under Section 40(3) of the Municipalities Act taken against the Petitioners with all costs. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the State of UP not to interfere in any manner with the functioning of the applicant as a member of the Municipal Board, Etah. The Petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board of Etah in October, 1953. The Board consists of a President and sixteen members. On 8-9-1955 proceedings Under Section 48 of the UP Municipalities Act were started against Sri Parshottam Dass Sarraf who was elected as the President of the Board. A petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed by him challenging the validity of the proceedings taken against him by the State Government, which was rejected on 17-1-1956 by this Court and a special appeal against the decision of a single Judge is pending before a Bench. In the year 1955, Piarey Lal Sharma, was elected as Senior Vice President of the Board. His election was also challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 1155 of 1955 in this Court. This petition, however, was rejected subsequently on a certain statement made by counsel of the Petitioner on 18-1-1956. On 10-8-1956 an order of suspension was served upon the applicant Under Section 40 of the Municipalities Act, and it is this order which is being challenged by means of this writ petition. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, the State of UP and the Joint Secretary to Government, UP, Municipal (A) Department, and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Subsequent to this, a meeting was held for the election of the Senior Vice Chairman and that was also challenged by means of a writ petition in this Court which was allowed: By a letter dated 9-8-1956 from the joint Secretary to the Government of UP to the District Magistrate of Etah, the Petitioner was asked to show cause within fifteen days of the receipt of the order as to why he should not be removed from the membership of the Board under Sub-section (3) of S. 40 of the UP Municipalities Act on account of the charges set forth in the list furnished with that letter. The charges are as follows:-

(2.) Along with this, an order of suspension was passed with the following terms:

(3.) Regarding the next question whether the charges have any relation to the subject matter of S. 40 (3), it is necessary to refer to some of the facts of the case as disclosed in the affidavit filed by the parties. The Petitioner was appointed a member of a certain committee which was entrusted with the work of investigating into the conduct of the Executive Officer. In that connection, certain documents and certain files were entrusted to the Petitioner and a dispute arose between the Board and the Petitioner as regards the return of these documents. The Chairman, it appears, was insisting upon the return of these documents by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on the other hand, was insisting upon a date being fixed for the consideration of the report and he was further insisting that he was willing to place the report and connected documents only before the Board on the date fixed for the meeting to be convened for the consideration of the report. He was not prepared to send the report for being looked into by the members of the Board before the meeting actually convened.