Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nur Mohammad, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. By way of this petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek a direction to restrain respondent No. 6, Chairman of Karlmganj Municipal Board, from dealing with all the financial matters of the Karimganj Municipal Board (Board) and to remove him from the post of Chairman of the Board for criminal misappropriation of public money. Petitioners further seek a direction to conduct an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the allegation of misappropriation of public money by respondent No. 6. 3. Petitioners are the elected Ward Commissioners of the Board and they have alleged various financial improprieties against the Chairman, i.e., respondent No. 6 in dealing with Municipal funds. Court is of the view that considering the nature of the grievance expressed and the order that is proposed to be passed, a detailed narration of the financial improprieties alleged is not required as it may cause prejudice to the parties. Suffice it to say that pursuant to a complaint received against the respondent No. 6, Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj caused an inquiry through the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, who thereafter submitted his report dated 25.7.2011. The said report disclosed Irregularities in dealing with funds of the Board. The said report along with the relevant documents were forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj vide the forwarding letter dated 26.7.2011 to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Municipal Administration Department. Grievance of the petitioners is that no action has been taken by the Secretary on the said inquiry report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 5. On 26.9.2011, this court admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order restraining the respondent No. 6 from spending any money belonging to the Board without approval from the elected body. 4. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 5. On 26.9.2011, this court admitted the writ petition and passed an interim order restraining the respondent No. 6 from spending any money belonging to the Board without approval from the elected body. It was ordered as under : "Since serious allegations of financial irregularities are levelled against the respondent No. 6 and the notice under section 28(3) of the Act has been issued, the respondent No. 6 is restrained from spending any money belonging to the Karimganj Municipal Board without approval from the elected body. Any amount spent, even after approved by the elected body, must be accounted for." 6. Respondent No. 1, in his affidavit filed on 21.9.2012, has stated that report of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj was received by the Government on 27.7.2011, whereafter the Chairman of the Board was served with a show cause notice dated 19.8.2011 under section 28(3) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (Act). The Chairman submitted his reply on 6.9.2011 denying the charges of financial the misappropriation levelled against him and instead raised objections to Inquiry Report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that in order to ascertain the truth and to arrive at a proper decision, an independent inquiry into charges was considered necessary, Therefore, Director of Municipal Administration, Assam was asked to submit an inquiry report. The affidavit further states that Director of Municipal Administration had, in the meanwhile, submitted his report which was under consideration of the Government. 7. Considering the above, this court passed order on 22.11.2012 directing the Government of Assam in the Municipal Administration Department to dispose of the proceeding that was initiated under section 28(3) of the Act expeditiously within 31.1.2013. 8. Thereafter, Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Urban Development Department (Municipal Administration Department since Re-designated as Urban Development Department) passed an order dated 31.12.2012 holding that allegation of involvement in corruption and misappropriation of Municipal fund by respondent No. 6 is not a fact. Though report of the Director of Municipal Administration revealed certain irregularities in the maintenance of records and accounts of the Board, the matter was closed by directing respondent No.6 to strictly adhere to the accounting norms. This order has been brought on record by an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners on 28.2.2013. 9. Respondent Nos. Though report of the Director of Municipal Administration revealed certain irregularities in the maintenance of records and accounts of the Board, the matter was closed by directing respondent No.6 to strictly adhere to the accounting norms. This order has been brought on record by an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners on 28.2.2013. 9. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in their separate affidavits have denied the allegation of corruption and financial impropriety levelled against the respondent No. 6 by the petitioners. Respondent No. 6, in his affidavit has explained the details of the expenditures incurred by him including withdrawing of money by self-cheques. Respondent No.6 has contended that all decisions regarding spending of municipal money were taken by taking the Board into confidence. 10. In the reply-affidavit, petitioners have not only contested the stand of respondent No. 6, but have also pointed out violation of various statutory provisions, including sections 37(1) and 61 of the Act by the respondent No. 6 while spending Municipal fund. 11. At the time of hearing the petition, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the materials on record, it is clearly evident that there has been gross financial irregularity while spending the Municipal fund belonging to the Board by the respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 cannot escape or evade responsibility. Government order dated 31.12.2012 is only an attempt to cover up the corruption indulged in by the respondent No. 6. He submits that the state has failed to exercise its power as conferred under sections 293, 296, 296A and 297 of the Act in an objective manner. Since financial impropriety committed by the respondent No. 6 is now in the public domain, it would be in the fitness of things and it would subserve the cause of justice, if an inquiry is directed against respondent No. 6 by an independent investigating agency, preferably by the CBI. 12. Learned State Counsel has, however, referred to and relied upon the Government order dated 31.12.2012 and contended that the Government had followed a fair procedure and had conducted a thorough inquiry into the allegations levelled against respondent No. 6, but did not find the allegation of corruption and misappropriation of Municipal fund by respondent No. 6 to be correct He, therefore, submits that in the circumstances which have unfolded, no further order is called for in the present proceeding. 13. 13. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, on the other hand, submits that the entire allegation against respondent No. 6 is actuated by political consideration as both the petitioners and respondent No. 6 belong to rival political groups. There is no truth in the allegations brought against the respondent No.6. Allegations brought against respondent No. 6 were however inquired into by the Government and having due regard to the enquiry report, a considered decision was taken by the Government not to take any action under section 28(3) of the Act. He submits.that since the issues are political, petitioners can raise them in the meetings of the Board itself and seek removal of the respondent No. 6 if they so desire in the appropriate forum. No case for interference is made out, he submits. 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 15. Before proceeding further, a reference to the report of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj is considered necessary as the said report is the basis leading to passing of the order dated 31.12.2012. 16. Inquiry was conducted by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj jointly with the Finance and Accounts Officer, Karimganj. After a thorough verification of the accounts and records, including cash books, report was submitted. As per the inquiry report during the present tenure of respondent No. 6 as Chairman, accounts related records have not been properly maintained. Closing balance in the cashbook indicated gross irregularities in dealing with funds of the Board. Chairman had withdrawn an amount of Rs.22.80 lakhs through self-cheques, which was in violation of financial rules and which also did not have the approval of the Board. There were diversion of funds without approval of the competent authority. Money was spent on schemes which were not approved. 17. As noticed above, on receipt of the said inquiry report from the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, the Government had issued a show cause notice to the Chairman, to which the Chairman submitted his reply refuting and controverting the allegations brought against him. At that stage, the Government requested the Director of Municipal Administration to conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the truth. Director of Municipal Administration conducted the inquiry through the Valuation Officer and Finance and Accounts Officer of the Directorate. At that stage, the Government requested the Director of Municipal Administration to conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the truth. Director of Municipal Administration conducted the inquiry through the Valuation Officer and Finance and Accounts Officer of the Directorate. In their joint report dated 29.11.2011, they stated that it was difficult to find out actual balance position of funds under respective Heads of Accounts because of non-maintenance of proper books of accounts. The inquiry report stated that procedural lapse was seen and the office was functioning without any system of maintaining proper systematic records of official work. There were diversion of funds without approval of the Government which is not permissible. The inquiry report suggested that a thorough audit has to be performed by the Audit Department, as no audit has been done since a long time, which has caused irregularities in maintaining books of accounts. It was, thereafter, that the order dated 31.12.2012 was passed. Relevant portion of the order dated 31.12.2012 reads as under : "On the perusal of the report of the Director of Municipal Administration, Assam, submitted in this regard, it has been ascertained that the allegation relating to involvement in corruption and misappropriation of Municipal fund by Dr. Manash Das, Chairman, Karimganj Municipal Board as reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, vide No. KDV(G)50.Pt./2011/35, dated 26.7.2011 is not a fact. The report of the Director of Municipal Administration, Assam, revealed certain omissions in respect of maintenance of records and more particularly relating to Accounts of the Karimganj Municipal Board. Therefore, the matter of Show Cause notice issued to Dr. Manash Das, Chairman, Karimganj Municipal Board vide No.UDD(M)120/2011/29, dated 19.8.2011, pursuant to the allegation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, vide No.KDV(G).50/Pt./2011/35, dated 26.7.2011, is hereby disposed in consonance with the Order of the hon'ble Gauhati High Court given on 22.11.2012 in WP(C) No. 4670/2011 without following guidelines to the Chairman, Karimganj Municipal Board. Henceforth, the Chairman, Karimganj Municipal Board is hereby directed to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Assam Municipal Accounting Manual, based on the National Municipal Accounts Manual and notified by the Government vide No.UDD (M)31/2008/195, dated 30.3.2011." 18. A perusal of the two inquiry reports, one dated 25.7.2011 of the Addl. Henceforth, the Chairman, Karimganj Municipal Board is hereby directed to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Assam Municipal Accounting Manual, based on the National Municipal Accounts Manual and notified by the Government vide No.UDD (M)31/2008/195, dated 30.3.2011." 18. A perusal of the two inquiry reports, one dated 25.7.2011 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj and the other dated 29.11.2011 of the Directorate of Municipal Administration would show that there were gross anomalies in the maintenance of accounts relating to utilization of funds of the Board. In other words, financial mismanagement has been admitted. Whether such mismanagement has led to misappropriation of Municipal fund by respondent No. 6 has however not been clearly spelt out. Rather, in the inquiry report of the Directorate of Municipal Administration, it has dearly been suggested that since no audit has been carried out for a long time leading to irregularities in the maintenance of books of accounts of the Board, a thorough audit has to be carried out by the Audit Department, i.e., by the Directorate of Local Fund Audit. 19. Viewed in the above context, the conclusion reached by the Secretary, Government of Assam in the Urban Development Department in the order dated 31.12.2012 that the allegation of corruption and misappropriation of Municipal fund by respondent No. 6 is not a fact, appears to be not based on the said two reports. On the face of the above two reports, prima facie the Government could not have given a clean chit and absolve respondent No. 6 of the allegations made against him. However, I may hasten to add that this does not mean or should not be construed to mean that respondent No. 6 should be held guilty of corruption and misappropriation of Municipal fund. The materials which have emerged from the two enquiry reports would justify a further and a more focused examination of the flaws pointed out. Therefore, the finding given by the Secretary in the order dated 31.12.2012 appears to be hasty without a detailed examination of the issue as was suggested by the inquiring authority when the materials on record clearly indicated financial irregularity, including unapproved diversion of funds. 20. At this stage, some of the relevant provisions of the Act may be referred to. 21. Section 28 of the Act deals with removal of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. 20. At this stage, some of the relevant provisions of the Act may be referred to. 21. Section 28 of the Act deals with removal of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Since this petition is concerned with removal of Chairman, reference will be made only to the Chairman. As per sub-section (3), the State Government after giving an opportunity to explain, may remove the Chairman from his office, if he is persistently omitting or refusing to carry out or disobeying the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder or he becomes incapable of so acting or is declared insolvent or is convicted by a criminal court for any offence involving moral turpitude. Under section 29(3), the State Government may after consultation with the Board remove any Commissioner, if his continuance in office is, in its opinion, dangerous to the public peace or order or likely to bring the administration of the Board into contempt. However, no such action shall be taken without giving an opportunity of showing cause to the Commissioner. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with control of the affairs of a Municipal Board by the Government and other authorities. Under section 293, the Commissioner of Division, the Deputy Commissioner, Director of Municipal Administration, Sub-Divisional Officer or any other Officer specially appointed by the State Government has the authority to enter into and inspect any Municipal office and its affairs, including inspection of any work in progress. The said authorities along with the State Government are also empowered to suspend execution of any action by the Board under section 296. Section 296A empowers the State Government and the other authorities to have control over proceedings of Municipal Boards to ensure that those are in conformity with the law and to do all things necessary to secure such conformity. Of course, such an action has to be preceded by giving an opportunity to the Board to express its views on the matter. State Government in case of default and the Deputy Commissioner in case of emergency has the authority under section 297 to intervene in the affairs of the Board and can appoint some fit and appropriate person to perform the duty of the Board. In case of incompetence, default or abuse of power, the State Government is empowered under section 298 of re Act to dissolve the Board after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 22. In case of incompetence, default or abuse of power, the State Government is empowered under section 298 of re Act to dissolve the Board after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 22. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that duty is cast upon the State Government to ensure that affairs of a Municipal Board are carried out in accordance with law and that there is no deviation from the legally prescribed path by any municipal functionary taking advantage of his unassailable position in the Board due to majority support Therefore, when reports of financial mismanagement or irregularity is brought to the notice of the State Government, duty is cast upon it to consider such report in an objective manner with all seriousness and take suitable remedial action under the relevant provisions of the Act as noticed above, if the situation so warrant. Thus, viewed in the above context, the decision of the Government dated 31.12.2012 falls well short of the standard prescribed by the above legal requirements. 23. Accordingly and in view of above; the said order 31.12.2012 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Urban Development Department cannot be sustained and is as such set aside and quashed. Since the matter relates to serious allegation of financial impropriety of Municipal fund, court is of the view that based on the two inquiry reports as noticed above, the matter requires to be looked into afresh by a higher authority of the rank of Add. Chief Secretary. It is, therefore, directed that Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam shall entrust one of the Addl. Chief Secretaries of the State to look into the above aspect of the matter and take fresh decision in accordance with law. 24. Regarding prayer of the petitioners for an investigation by an independent authority, it is seen that petitioners on their part have not taken any steps for initiation of any criminal investigation into the allegations which they have brought against respondent No.6. Petitioners have neither lodged any first information before the police nor any complaint before the Magistrate against alleged financial irregularities committed by respondent No. 6. Since no investigation has been set in motion, question of referring such investigation to an independent body does not arise. Accordingly, the said prayer of the petitioners cannot be acceded to at this stage. 25. Petitioners have neither lodged any first information before the police nor any complaint before the Magistrate against alleged financial irregularities committed by respondent No. 6. Since no investigation has been set in motion, question of referring such investigation to an independent body does not arise. Accordingly, the said prayer of the petitioners cannot be acceded to at this stage. 25. Notwithstanding the above, it will be open to the petitioners to lodge such first information or complaint before the appropriate authority, if they so desire. 26. It is made clear that any observation made in the course of the judgment is to be construed as limited for the purpose of deciding the present petition only and the authorities shall not be influenced by any such observations made. 27. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.