LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-74

RAJIV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On May 13, 2003
RAJIV SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, an elected President of Municipal Council, Ambah District Morena, has called in question tenability of an order dated 12-12-2002, passed by the State Government vide Annexure P/4-A, removing him from the post of President, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 41 (A) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961 ).

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was elected to the Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) in the election held on 26-12-1999, result thereof was declared on 28-12-1999, certificate, Annexure P-1 is the declaration under the relevant statutory rule declaring him to be elected as President of the Council.

(3.) IT is the case of petitioner that even though he was discharging his duties effectively and in accordance with law, but certain persons were personally annoyed with him, therefore, complaints were made to respondent No. 1 who by letter dated 17-7-2001, Annexure P-2 raised certain quarries from respondent No. 3 in connection with the alleged irregularities. It is averred by the petitioner that in response to the aforesaid quarries, the Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development, Gwalior, vide Annexure P-3, dated 10-8-2001, had clarified the position. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 24-12-2001, Annexure P-4 was issued under the provisions of Section 41-A of the Act of 1961, making various allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the aforesaid supported by documents. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for personal hearing in the matter on 15-4-2002, however without considering his submissions and explanation, action has been taken for removing him from office. It is submitted by the petitioner that even though various allegations were levelled in the show-cause notice, Annexure P-4, but in the final order passed vide Annexure P/4-A, he is found guilty of five charges mentioned therein.