JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition against an order of termination passed on 16.10.2000 by the respondent No. 2, which has been confirmed in appeal by the respondent No. 4 on 21.11.2002. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner who was class IV employee appointed by the Executive Officer, therefore his services could have been terminated only by an order passed by the Executive Officer under the provisions of Sections 75 and 76 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, which reads as under : “75. Appointment of permanent inferior staff.—Except as otherwise provided, the Executive Officer shall appoint servants carrying scales of pay lower than the lowest scale of pay referred to in Section 74 : Provided that in case there is no Executive Officer, the said appointments shall be by the President. 76. Punishment and dismissal of permanent inferior staff.—Except as otherwise provided, the Executive Officer, and where there is no Executive Officer, the President may dismiss, remove or otherwise punish servants of the board, or terminate the services of probationers, (referred to in Section 75) subject to their right of appeal, except in the case of the termination of the service of a probationer, to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.” 3. He has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the President despite the fact that the Executive Officer was present in the respondent Nagar Palika. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the charge-sheet was not issued by the Executive Officer but was issued by the Head Clerk and thereafter the enquiry proceedings against him was also conducted by the Enquiry Officer, who was the head clerk, therefore the entire enquiry proceedings were vitiated. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to him, and despite repeated demands, no documents were provided to him during the course of enquiry proceedings. 6. Another argument has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued to him before the charge sheet was issued on 16.10.2000. 7. I have perused the provisions of the Sections 75 and 76 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, powers under the said sections are having extended to the both Executive Officer and the President. 7. I have perused the provisions of the Sections 75 and 76 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, powers under the said sections are having extended to the both Executive Officer and the President. There is no embargo under the said provisions that if there is no Executive Officer, the President cannot make appointment or initiate any disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of Section 75. No clear allegation has also been made in the writ petition that in this particular organization, the Executive Officer was there and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the President for some malafide purpose. 8. However the petitioner had worked in the respondent organization for 23 years. He was put through disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has made allegations that he was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. This fact is however denied by the respondent, who has stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity but did not take the same. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that in view of the long years service that the petitioner has put in the Nagar Palika, the respondents should give to him a fresh opportunity of hearing and allow to give all the documents or the papers, which he may want to produce in his defence. I permit the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and the respondents will give to the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing in conformity with the principles of natural justice and decide the representation of the petitioner within the next period of three months. The hearing in this case will be given to the petitioner by the Executive Officer and in case he is absent, then the President, as is provided under Section 76 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. It is made clear that this order of remand has only been made for the purpose of compliance of the principles of natural justice. 10. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Order Accordingly. ———