1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Anurag Khanna and Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel who have filed caveat on behalf of Habibur Rahman, Dr. Mohammad Author, Manoj Kumar and Umesh Kumar, but who have not been impleaded in the present writ petition. Under the show-cause notice issued in exercise of power under Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the State Government has recorded that the charges against the petitioner, as recorded in the show-cause notice, are serious and are prima facie established from the materials which has been collected and produced before the State Government, the petitioner may show-cause as to why, he may not be removed from the office of President, within fifteen days. The Governor has also been pleased to direct that in view of the seriousness of the charges qua which there is material on record the financial and administrative powers of the Adhyaksha of Nagar Palika Parishad shall remain ceased, till he is acquitted of the charges mentioned in the notice. The District Magistrate has been authorized to exercise financial and administrative functions on day-to-day in accordance with provisions of the U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1916.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds for challenging the show-cause notice itself as well as for questioning the cessation of his financial and administrative powers.
3. We are not satisfied on the merits of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the District Magistrate, having no authority to collect any material or to submit any fact finding report in respect of complaints made against the Adhyaksha of Nagar Palika Parishad.
4. We also do not find much substance in the submission that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the preliminary/fact finding inquiry has been done by subordinate officers and not by the District Magistrate himself. From the report of the District Magistrate dated 22.12.2014 and dated 1.1.2015, it is clear that he has referred to the material, which had been collected upon inquiry by his subordinate officers. The reports show application of mind by the District Magistrate in respect of the involvement of the Adhyaksha and the correctness otherwise of the charges levelled on prima facie basis.
5. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is hardly any illegality in the notice as well as in the order ceasing his financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.
6. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel however contended before us that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U.P. (supra). In paragraph 84 the Full Bench has stated as follows:
"84. In our opinion, the cessation of financial and administrative power can take place only if the power under the proviso to Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act is rightly exercised. It is rightly exercised only if at least the following conditions are satisfied in the notice/order:
(i) There should be objective satisfaction of the State Government that:
The allegations do not appear to be groundless; and
The president is prima facie guilty of the ground that have to be indicated under Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act.
(ii) The show-cause notice should contain the charges;
(iii) The show-cause notice should not only indicates the material on which the reason to believe or objective satisfaction is based, but the evidence by which charges are to be proved should also mentioned. However, in most of the cases they might be the same and there would not be any point in repeating them.''''
In paragraph 85, it has been observed as follows:
"Should there be another condition of affording opportunity to the president before issuing notice and in case opportunity is to be afforded then of what is the value of the same, if the president''s explanation is not considered. This will be considered in the next point."
8. The Full Bench has thereafter gone on to hold that it is not necessary to involve the President in the matter of collection of material/evidence. But, under the heading of natural justice, it has been held that it may apply at interim stage also.
9. In paragraph 102 the Full Bench has stated that "there is no specific provision for affording opportunity before issuing notice under the provisions of 48(2) of Municipalities Act". Thereafter, in paragraph 104, it has been held that "even if the cessation of financial and administrative powers are a step in finalization of removal proceedings, it may still attract the principles of natural justice". In paragraph 108, it has been held as follows:
"108. In the case, where a head of a local body is deprived to exercise financial and administrative power, and ultimately the proceeding for removal are dropped then in such an event his loss can never be compensated. A post decisional hearing cannot cure the harm/damage done to him."
10. The Full Bench has held that for lawful cessation of administrative and financial powers, it is necessary that the explanation or the point of view or the version on the facts of president should be obtained on the recorded charges and should be considered before recording satisfaction in issuing notice/order under the proviso to Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act, 1916. We may reproduce the relevant part of the conclusion as per paragraph 133 of the Full Bench judgment which reads as under:
"133. Our conclusions are as follows:
(a) There can be proceeding for removal of president under Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act without ceasing his financial and administrative power under its proviso;
(b) The following conditions must be satisfied before cessation of financial and administrative powers of a president of a Municipality can take place:
(i) The explanation or point of view or the version of the affected president should be obtained regarding charges and should be considered before recording satisfaction and issuing notice/order under proviso to Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act;
(ii) The State Government should be objectively satisfied on the basis of relevant material that:"
11. Section 48 (2) of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 reads as follows:
48. Removal of President.--(1)
(2) Where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that,-
(a) there has been a failure on the part of the President in performing his duties; or
(b) the President has-
(i) incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12D and 43AA; or
(ii) within the meaning of Section 82 knowingly acquired or continued to have, directly or indirectly or by a partner, any share or interest, whether pecuniary or of any other nature, in any contract or employment with by or on behalf of the [Municipality]; or
(iii) knowingly acted as a President or as a member in a matter other than a matter referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 32, in which he has, directly or indirectly, or by a partner, any share or interest whether pecuniary or of any other nature, or in which he was professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or
(iv) being a legal practitioner acted or appeared in any suit or other proceeding on behalf of any person against the [Municipality] or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the [Municipality] or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the [Municipality], or acted or appeared for or on behalf of any person against whom a criminal proceeding has been instituted by or on behalf of the [Municipality]; or
(v) abandoned his ordinary place of residence in the municipal area concerned; or
(vi) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or
(vii) during the current or the last preceding term of the [Municipality], acting as President or [***], or as Chairman of a Committee, or as member or in any other capacity whatsoever, whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self-Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, so flagrantly abused his position, or so willfully contravened any of the provisions of this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law, or caused such loss of damage to fund or property of the [Municipality] as to render him unfit to continue to be President; or
(viii) been guilty of any other misconduct whether committed before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self-Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 whether as President or as [***], exercising the powers of President, or as [***], or as member; or
[(ix) caused loss or damage to any property of the municipality; or
(x) misappropriated or misused of Municipal found; or
(xi) acted against the interest of the municipality; or
(xii) contravened the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; or
(xiii) created an obstacle in a meeting of the municipality in such manner that it becomes impossible for the municipality to conduct its business in the meeting or instigated someone to do so; or
(xiv) willfully contravened any order or direction of the State Government given under this Act; or
(xv) misbehaved without any lawful justification with the officers or employees of the municipality; or
(xvi) disposed of any property belonging to the municipality at a price less than its market value; or
(xvii) encroached, or assisted or instigated any other person to encroach upon the land, building or any other immovable property of the municipality;]
it may call upon him to show-cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office.
[Provided that where the State Government has reason to believe that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie guilty on any of the grounds of this sub-section resulting in the issuance of the show-cause notice and proceedings under this sub-section he shall, from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice containing charges, cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice issued to him under this sub-section and finalization of the proceedings under sub-section (2-A) and the said powers, functions and duties of the President during the period of such ceasing, shall be exercised, performed and discharged by the District Magistrate or an officer nominated by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector.]
(2-A) [***]
[(2-B) An order passed by the State Government under sub-section (2-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court.]
(3) [***]
[(4) A President removed under sub-section (2-A) shall also cease to be a member of the [Municipality] and in case of removal on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (a) or sub-clause (vi), (vii) or (viii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall not be eligible for re-election as President or member for a period of five years from the date of his removal.]"
12. In our opinion on simple reading of the said provision what follows is that once satisfaction, is arrived at by the State Government in the matter of substance of the charges on prima facie basis against the president, it will issue a notice under Section 48(2) calling upon the president to show-cause as to why, he may not be removed. Once such, show-cause notice is issued, the law take its own course and the financial and administrative powers of the President stand ceased as per the mandatory provision of the Section automatically. No separate order in fact is required in view of the language of provision to Section 48(2) U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
13. According to our reading of the Section 48(2) of the Act alongwith the proviso what follows is that the State Government is required to issue a show-cause notice to the President calling upon him to show-cause as to why he be not removed only when:
(a) facts which disclose any or all of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) or Clause (b)(I) to (b)(xvii) are brought to the knowledge of the State Government, and
(b) the State Government has reasons to believe that the allegations are not baseless and the President is prima facie guilty.
14. Once such a notice under Section 48(2) is issued the financial and administrative powers of the President stand ceased by operation of law. No separate order in that regard is required to be made.
15. The intention of the legislature appears to be that on trivial charges and/or on allegations not supported by material evidence prima facie disclosing involvement of the President no proceedings by issuing notice under Section 48(2) should be initiated.
16. The proviso to Section 48(2) in fact lays down the conditions which must be satisfied after allegations disclosing the grounds as per Section 48(2)(a) or 48(2)(b) are brought to the notice of the State Government namely the charges must be supported by material evidence suggesting prima facie involvement of the President, before the State can issue notice under Section 48(2). The reason for the same is also obvious President is an elected head of the Municipality his continuance and working should not be interfered with by the State in exercise of its executive powers normally. It has been so assured by providing under the provision to Section 48(2) that notice to show-cause to the President shall only be issued only when there is material in support of charges which also disclose prima facie involvement of the President.
17. We find it difficult to accept the proposition of law laid down by the Full Court in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U.P. (supra), that there can be proceedings against the president under Section48(2) without ceasing his financial and administrative powers. As already noticed above. From the simple language of the proviso to Section 48(2) it clear that cessation of powers takes place by operation of law with the issuance of notice under Section 48(2) itself.
18. Cessation of the financial and administrative powers of the President flows automatically once a notice under Section 48(2) is issued to him by the State Government.
19. It is by operation of law that the financial and administrative powers stands ceased automatically/invariably once a notice under Section 48(2) of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is issued and no separate orders are contemplated under the provision of the Act.
20. The Full Bench of this Court has not examined the aforesaid aspect of the matter while coming to a conclusion that opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the President before ceasing the financial and administrative powers after a notice under Section 48(2) has been issued.
21. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to accept the law, as laid down by Full Bench in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U.P. (supra).
22. It is settled law that if the words of statute are simple and admit of only one meaning then no rule of interpretation is required to be invoked by Court of law. The simple meaning has to be given effect to irrespective of the hardship it may cause.
23. Following questions needs to be answered by a Larger Bench:
(a) Whether the Full Bench judgment in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari v. State of U.P. (supra) lays down the correct law?
(b) Whether in view of the language of Section 48(2) proviso, there can be any proceedings for removal of the President under Section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act, without ceasing his financial and administrative powers under the proviso?
(c) Whether cessation of financial and administrative powers of the President follows automatically with the issuance of the show-cause notice under Section 48(2) calling upon him to show-cause as to why he may not be removed?
(d) Whether any separate order for cessation of financial and administrative powers of the President is required to be made while issuing notice under Section 48(2) proviso or such cessation follows automatically?
(e) Whether in view of the specific language of Section 48(2), the question of opportunity of hearing before cessation of the financial and administrative powers of the President stand excluded?
24. Since, the rights of petitioner have been put in jeopardy and he has a limited term, we request the Hon''ble The Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench for deciding the aforesaid issue, if possible in next two weeks. So far as the impleadment application is concerned, petitioner is at liberty to file objections.
