JUDGMENT G. C. Mathur, J. - The petitioner was elected a member of the Municipal Board, Bisalpur, district Pilibhit, in November, 1964. On February 11, 1966, the District Magistrate, Pilibhit sent a letter to the petitioner, stating that the Chairman, Municipal Board, Bisalpur, had reported that action for removal of the petitioner under Sec. 40 of the U.P. Municipalities Act be taken as he had not attended the meetings of the Board held from August 28, 1965 to January 15, 1966, for a period of over three months and asking the petitioner to report as to why the Commissioner should not be moved to take action against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to this letter, explaining that he had fallen seriously ill in August, 1965, on account of some heart ailment and had been advised to take complete rest for at least six months. He appended a medical certificate to his reply. He further explained that he had sent a note to the President of the Municipal Board through Shri Tufail Ahmad, informing him that he was ill. On April 23, 1966, the petitioner received a notice from the Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, stating that it had been reported to him that the petitioner had absented himself from the boards meetings held on August 28, September 8, October 20, November 26 and December 7, 1965 and January 15, 1966, i.e., for more than three consecutive months without obtaining prior sanction from the Board, and asking the petitioner to explain within 15 days from receipt of the notice as to why action under the aforesaid section should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation, again stating that it was on account of his acute illness that he could not attend the meetings of the Board. A copy of the medical certificate was also appended to the explanation. He also explained that he had sent a note to the President in October, 1965, stating that he was ill and requesting him to put up the note before the Board. It was slated that the note was sent through Shri Tufail Ahmad, resident of Mohalla Habibullah Khan Junubi, who delivered it to the President in the presence of two members of the Board, Shri Radhey Mohan Bajpai and Shri Mahesh Chandra. It was slated that the note was sent through Shri Tufail Ahmad, resident of Mohalla Habibullah Khan Junubi, who delivered it to the President in the presence of two members of the Board, Shri Radhey Mohan Bajpai and Shri Mahesh Chandra. At the end of the explanation, the petitioner gave the names of three persons who could substantiate his case about the sending and delivery of the note to the President and the names of two persons who could establish the fact of his illness. By order dated June 23, 1966, the Commissioner removed the petitioner from membership of the Municipal Board. In his order, the Commissioner observed that the case regarding the sending of the note about illness was an after thought and could not be accepted. This he did without examining either the petitioner or the three witnesses named by him in his explanation and, apparently, without examining the President. The Commissioner did not at all examine the petitioners allegation that he was absent on account of acute illness and has ignored this aspect, apparently being of the view that the reason for the absence was irrelevant. This order of removal is challenged by the petitioner. 2. The provisions of law, which govern the decision of this case, are set down below: - 40(1) - The State Government in the case of a city, or the Prescribed Authority in any other case, may remove a member of the Board on any of the following grounds: (a) that he has absented himself from the meetings of the Board for more than three consecutive month or three consecutive meetings, whichever is the longer period, without obtaining sanction from the Board: Provided that the period during which the member was in jail as an under trial, detenu or as a political prisoner, shall not be taken into account; ................ "(4) - Provided that when either the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, proposes to take action under the foregoing provisions of this section, an opportunity of explanation shall be given to the member concerned, and when such action is taken, the reasons therefor shall be placed on record. ................ "(4) - Provided that when either the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, proposes to take action under the foregoing provisions of this section, an opportunity of explanation shall be given to the member concerned, and when such action is taken, the reasons therefor shall be placed on record. ................ (6) - Without prejudice to any of the foregoing powers, the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, may, on any of the grounds referred to in sub-Sec. (1), instead of removing the member, give him a warning or place him under suspension for a specified term not exceeding three months at a time, and any member who has been so suspended shall not, as long as the order of suspension continues to remain in force, be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or otherwise perform the duties of a member. Explanation - The power of administering warning or placing a member under suspension under sub-Sec. (6) may be exercised either by the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, while dealing with the matter originally under sub-Sec. (1) or sub-Sec. (3) or by the State Government on appeal under sub-Sec. (2)." 3. It is not denied by the petitioner that he was, in fact, absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the Board, that he was absent for more than three consecutive months and that no sanction was granted by the Board. But it is contended that the Commissioner ought to have examined the petitioner's explanation and, if he found that there was reasonable cause for his absence, he should have taken no action for the removal of the petitioner from the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that it is not obligatory on the Commissioner to remove a member who has been absent for the period mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 40. It is his duty to examine the explanation offered by the member and make such enquiry into the matter as appears to him necessary. If then he finds that there was reasonable cause for the absence, he may take no action against the member, or he may inflict the lesser of the penalties provided for in sub-Sec. (6). It is his duty to examine the explanation offered by the member and make such enquiry into the matter as appears to him necessary. If then he finds that there was reasonable cause for the absence, he may take no action against the member, or he may inflict the lesser of the penalties provided for in sub-Sec. (6). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the absence for the period mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 40 must necessarily result in the removal of the member, except in cases covered by the proviso. All the exceptions to the section, according to him, are enumerated in the proviso and it is not permissible to spell out another exception. To say that, if the absence is for some good reason, no action can be taken against the member would amount to engrafting another exception in addition to those contained in the proviso. He further contended that, if three things art established that there was absence for the requisite period, that the proviso was not attracted and that the Board has not granted sanction for the absence, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is attracted and he has the discretion to pass the order. H is then not required to examine the reasons for the absence. It would thus appear that the main question which falls for determination, is whether a member, who has been absent for the requisite period without sanction, can validly offer the explanation that there was reasonable cause for his absence and whether the Commissioner is bound to consider such an explanation and to take it into account in passing his order. 4. The first thing that has to be considered is whether, if the conditions mentioned in Cl. (a) are satisfied the Commissioner is bound to re move a member. Sec. 40(1) uses the words "may remove a member." The use of the word "may" indicates that the State Government and the Prescribed Authority have been given discretion and it is not obligatory on them to remove a member even if the conditions mentioned in Cl (a) are satisfied. Then sub-Sec. (6) of Sec. 40 provides that, instead of removing a member, the State Government or the Prescribed Authority may either give him a warning or place him under suspension for specified term not exceeding three months. Then sub-Sec. (6) of Sec. 40 provides that, instead of removing a member, the State Government or the Prescribed Authority may either give him a warning or place him under suspension for specified term not exceeding three months. This may be done even when notice has been given under sub-Sec. (1). There can be no doubt that the State Government and the Prescribed Authority were given discretion in the matter of punishing a member of a Municipal Board and they were not bound to take any particular action or any action at all. 5. Then it has to be seen as to what is the nature of the powers that are to be exercised by the State Government or the Prescribed Authority under Sec. 40. Sub-Sec. (4) applies to all the clauses of sub-Sec. 1(1) and to sub-Sec. (3). Sub-Sec. 1(3) provides for removal of a member who has flagrantly abused his position as a member or has wilfully contravened any of the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law or has caused loss or damages to the fund or property of the board. It is obvious that the authority taking action is required to find the existence of certain facts enumerated in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-Sec. (1) and in sub-Sec. (3) after giving an opportunity of explanation to the charged member. The facts can only be found after making an inquiry. The authority is further required to record its reasons for the action. Considering the nature of the power that it is one of inflicting punishment on a member and the procedure prescribed for the exercise of the power, it must be held that the power must be exercised quasi-judicial. 6. Having cleared the ground, the main question can now be considered. In cases covered by the proviso to Cl. (a), the authority can neither issue a notice nor take any action against a member. No question of giving an opportunity to the member to explain or the authority to exercise discretion can arise in such cases. But, in cases not covered by the proviso, the authority has a discretion either to take action or not to take action. (a), the authority can neither issue a notice nor take any action against a member. No question of giving an opportunity to the member to explain or the authority to exercise discretion can arise in such cases. But, in cases not covered by the proviso, the authority has a discretion either to take action or not to take action. If, for some reason, he exercised his discretion in favour of not taking any action in any particular case, it cannot be said that he is adding another exception to those enumerated in the proviso. I am not prepared to accept that once it is established that a member was absent for the requisite period without sanction of the board and the case was not covered by the proviso, the authority must necessarily take action against the member. That would be tantamount to saying that, if these facts exist, there would be automatic disqualification of the member and the authority would pass the order mechanically. Then what would be the discretion left to the authority ? What is the opportunity for explanation for ? Explanation means explanation for ones conduct. The explanation, which a member may give under sub-Sec. (4), is the explanation for his absence without sanction. Suppose a member states in his explanation and also satisfies the authority that he did, in fact, sent an application for sanction to the President of the Board but that the President did not place the matter before the Board. Surely, the authority will take this matter into consideration and it will be a proper exercise of its judicial discretion not to take any action against the member. Similarly, where a member states in his explanation and satisfies the authority that, for valid reasons beyond his control, he could not attend the meetings and could not ask for sanction, it would again be a proper exercise of discretion not to take action against him. In another case, the authority may find that, though the absence was for a reasonable cause, yet the member could have but did not obtain the sanction of the board. In such a case, the authority may properly award one of the lesser penalties mentioned in sub-Sec. (6). In another case, the authority may find that, though the absence was for a reasonable cause, yet the member could have but did not obtain the sanction of the board. In such a case, the authority may properly award one of the lesser penalties mentioned in sub-Sec. (6). I have given these illustrations to emphasise the fact that, in every case, an examination of the explanation offered, an investigation into the correctness and validity of the reasons given for absence without sanction and a judicial consideration thereof are imperative before the authority takes action against a member. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State Government or the Prescribed Authority, as t,he case may be, to consider the explanation offered by a member for his absence without sanction on merits and to exercise its discretion judicially. If necessary, it may examine evidence or make other investigation. 7. In the present case, as already slated above, the Commissioner has ignored the explanation offered by the petitioner for his absence. He has not cared to examine whether the petitioner was really acutely ill, as alleged by him in his explanation. It was his duty to examine this explanation on merits. If he found no substance in it, he could have rejected it but, if he found that the explanation was correct, then he was bound to take it into consideration in exercising discretion and in taking action against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner's explanation that he had sent a letter about his absence to the President for being placed before the Board has not been dealt with judicially. The three witnesses mentioned by the petitioner in his explanation in support of this part of his case were not examined. There was no evidence before the Commissioner to show that this part of the petitioners case was false; yet the Commissioner rejected this part of his case. All this shows that the Commissioner did not perform his duty, as required by the statute and his order is liable to be quashed. 8. For the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Commissioner dated June 23, 1966, removing the petitioner from membership of the Municipal Board, Bisalpur, under Sec. 40(1) (a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs of the petition.