JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla; Acting Chief Justice and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General, U.P. assisted by Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the following principal reliefs have been claimed: - "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the order dated 23.6.2016 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 48 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, removing the petitioner as President from the Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, Rampur (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to work as the President of Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, Rampur without any interference by the authorities concerned." 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner is the elected Chairman/Adhyaksh of Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, District Rampur. In the year 2004 she was elected to the office of Adhyaksha of the Nagar Palika Parishad and there was a government of the ruling Samajwadi Party in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that she was pressurised to take shelter of the ruling party. When she did not succumb to the pressure of the ruling party, she was implicated in a false case and a first information report dated 25.1.2004 was lodged against her at Police Station Milak, District Rampur under Section 409 IPC and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Milak, Rampur. In the said case, the police had submitted final report dated 24.11.2004, which was accepted by the Judge (Anti Corruption) Bareilly on 1.9.2008. Again, when the petitioner was elected as Chairperson of the Nagar Palika Parishad, another first information report dated 19.7.2012 was lodged against her by the then Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad and the case was registered as Case Crime No.728 of 2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC at Police Station Milak, District Rampur. In the aforesaid case she was sent to jail and subsequently she was granted bail. At present, the said case is pending against the petitioner before the competent court and the trial is going on. 4. In the aforesaid case she was sent to jail and subsequently she was granted bail. At present, the said case is pending against the petitioner before the competent court and the trial is going on. 4. Again when the petitioner has been elected for the third time as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, she was again subjected to face the arbitrariness of the administrative officers and the lock was put on doors of the office of Nagar Palika Parishad in question and before this locking in the evening the Executive Officer was beaten brutally by the members of the ruling party and he was implicated in a case and was sent to jail. Being aggrieved with such action the petitioner filed a Writ C No.13789 of 2015 wherein this Court vide order dated 19.3.2015 passed an interim order with following effect: - "District Magistrate, Rampur must ensure that if the lock has been put in the office of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Milak Rampur, then the lock is removed positively by tomorrow i.e. 20th March, 2015. The office of the Parishad must be opened, failing which the District Magistrate shall remain present before this Court to disclose as to how can the local body office be locked, whatever may be the irregularities/illegalities committed by the officer manning the office. Put up tomorrow i.e. 20th March, 2015." 5. Meanwhile the respondents on the basis of some frivolous complaint proceeded in the matter on the dictate of District Magistrate, Rampur and State Government and frivolous report was prepared by despondent no.3 and the same was forwarded to respondent no.1 on 21.2.2015. Consequently show cause notice was given to her and finally her financial and administrative powers were ceased. She assailed such action in Writ C No.15467 of 2015 challenging the order dated 12.3.2015 wherein this Court vide order dated 15.4.2015 granted an interim order to the following effect: - "Heard Sri A.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. She assailed such action in Writ C No.15467 of 2015 challenging the order dated 12.3.2015 wherein this Court vide order dated 15.4.2015 granted an interim order to the following effect: - "Heard Sri A.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri A.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Full Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Hafiz Ata Ullah Ansari Vs State of U.P. and another reported in 2011, Vol 3 ADJ 502 FB, has submitted that the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner who is Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, has been seized without affording any opportunity. It is further submitted that the impugned show cause notice for removal also seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner , which is in violation of the law laid down in the case of Hafiz Ata Ullah Ansari (Supra). Prima facie a case of interim relief is made out. Let counter affidavit be filed within a month. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. As an interim measure the show cause notice dated 12.3.2015 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed to the extent it direct for seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. It is however, clarified that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and take final decision in the matter under Section 48 of the U.P.Municipalities Act, 1916." 6. Thereafter another committee was constituted to enquire into the matter and to submit a report against her. The committee submitted its report dated 4.9.2015, which was forwarded to the respondent no.1 on 15.9.2015. Thereafter, the earlier Executive Officer was transferred and another Executive Officer was appointed and the report dated 8.3.2016 was submitted against the petitioner. The Director, Local Bodies sent a report dated 15.3.2016 against the petitioner. The respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice dated 31.3.2016 to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 11.4.2016, denying all the charges. Ultimately the respondents passed the impugned order dated 23.6.2016, removing the petitioner from the office, giving rise to the writ petition. 7. The Director, Local Bodies sent a report dated 15.3.2016 against the petitioner. The respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice dated 31.3.2016 to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 11.4.2016, denying all the charges. Ultimately the respondents passed the impugned order dated 23.6.2016, removing the petitioner from the office, giving rise to the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been illegally removed from the post in question in the most undemocratic manner without giving any proper opportunity to her to examine or cross-examine any witness. The enquiry was conducted in a most arbitrary manner and the petitioner could not have been removed in such a unceremonial manner. She has been ousted at the whims and fancies of a very powerful Cabinet Minister of the same District. It has also been contended that all the three charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, are vague and evasive. At no point of time the petitioner has proceeded to work whatsoever which could result into financial loss to the Corporation. As soon as the clerical mistake was detected by the petitioner before implementing the work, immediately she had proceeded to stop the work. The financial and administrative power of the petitioner was ceased in most undemocratic manner and the said action was assailed by the petitioner by means of Writ C No.15467 of 2015 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.4.2015 granted an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 12.3.2015. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire proceeding has been conducted on the dictate of the Minister concerned, who belongs to the same District and due to political vendetta, the petitioner has been illegally removed from the post in a most undemocratic manner without giving any opportunity to her to examine or cross-examine any witness and no document has ever been proved in her presence. In a democratic set up neither the bureaucrats nor the State authorities are supposed to conduct an inquiry in such an arbitrary manner and the petitioner could not be removed in such an unceremonious manner. Charges have not been framed precisely and inquiry cannot be conducted on vague charges against the petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 23.6.2016 is liable to be quashed. 9. Charges have not been framed precisely and inquiry cannot be conducted on vague charges against the petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 23.6.2016 is liable to be quashed. 9. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General, UP assisted by Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has opposed the writ petition vehemently in submitting that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and there was no violation of any rules and statutory provisions and the petitioner had been accorded full opportunity to defend herself. No fault can be found with the enquiry report and the impugned order and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 11. In order to appreciate respective arguments that have been so advanced, this Court proceeds to mention that in order to have participation of people at all level for fulfilling the saying that 'democracy is for the people, of the people; and by the people' and it is the will of the people that is paramount for the purposes of self governance for urban areas, Municipalities have been created and same forms part of Local Self Government under U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (in short, the Act), wherein elections are held and peoples representative are elected based on secret ballot basis, and such elected members have the right to govern the affairs of the Municipality concerned as per the statutory provisions of the Act. Municipality consists of President who is the Chairperson, and elected Members. Apart from elected Member, Municipality also has ex-officio Members as enumerated in sub-section (b), (c), (d) of Section 9 of the Act. Municipalities were earlier having statutory status, and now they have been conferred with constitutional status as in Part-IX and IXA of the Constitution, Article 243 to 243ZG has been introduced to bring Panchayats, Zila Parshads and Municipalities as constitutional instrumentalities to elongate the socio economic and political democracy under the Rule of law. 74th amendment of the Constitution deals with Municipalities covering urban areas of the District and same also takes within its fold; (I) Rural area in transition to becoming urban area, earlier known as Town Area now designated as Nagar Panchayat. 74th amendment of the Constitution deals with Municipalities covering urban areas of the District and same also takes within its fold; (I) Rural area in transition to becoming urban area, earlier known as Town Area now designated as Nagar Panchayat. (II) Urban areas, depending on its size, are known as Municipality (smaller urban area) or Municipal Corporation (larger urban area). 12. Once constitutional status has been given to the Municipality and it is a democratic institution and its functioning is governed by rule of law provided for in the Act, wherein an incumbent elected to the office is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by procedure known to law or he is removed by procedure established under law. In this background the relevant provision holding the field of removal of President for answering the issues raised are being looked into. Section 48 of the Act provides for as follows; "48. Removal of President.- (1) ...... In this background the relevant provision holding the field of removal of President for answering the issues raised are being looked into. Section 48 of the Act provides for as follows; "48. Removal of President.- (1) ...... [omitted] (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 12-D and 43-AA; 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 82, 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 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 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-laws, or caused such loss or damage to the 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 member; or (ix) caused loss or damage to any property of the Municipality; or (x) misappropriated or misused Municipal fund; 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." 13. Section 48 of the Act provides for procedure as well as ground on which a President can be removed. Proviso to Section 48(2) provides for cessation of financial and administrative powers under specified conditions mentioned therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 was deleted by U.P. Act No. 7 of 1949. Sub-section (2) of Section 48 which was substituted by Act No. 27 of 1964 provides that where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that any of the circumstances enumerated in (a) or (b) exist, then it may call upon the President to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office. Sub-sections (2A) and (2B) were also added by U.P. Act No. 27 of 1964. Sub-section (2A) provides that after considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from office while Sub-section (2-B) provides that an order passed by the State Government under Sub-section (2-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. 14. Section 48 was again amended by U.P. Act No. 6 of 2004 and the same was published in the State Extraordinary Gazette on 27/2/2004. 14. Section 48 was again amended by U.P. Act No. 6 of 2004 and the same was published in the State Extraordinary Gazette on 27/2/2004. In Section 48 of the Act, after Sub-section (2) the following sub-section shall be inserted namely: - "(2-A) where in an inquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, if a President or a Vice-President is prima-facie found to be guilty on any of the grounds referred to in Sub-section (2), he shall cease to exercise, perform and discharge the financial and administrative powers, functions and duties of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges mentioned in the show case notice issued to him under Sub-section (2), be exercised and performed by the District Magistrate or by any officer nominated by him not below the rank of the Deputy Collector." 15. In Section 48 of the Act the State Government is empowered to issue show-cause notice to the guilty President on the grounds mentioned under Section 48, before removing him from office. Most of the Presidents used to delay the proceedings by not replying the show-cause notice in time and they continue to misuse their financial powers. It has therefore been decided to amend the said Act to cease the financial powers of such President or a Vice-President during the pendency of the inquiry and his financial powers and functions will be exercised and performed by the District Magistrate until he/she is exonerated of the charges. 16. However, soon thereafter Section 48 of the Act was again amended by U.P. Ordinance No. 4 of 2005 which was published in the Gazette on 24/1/2005. It was subsequently converted to U.P. Act No. 2 of 2005 and it was provided that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 27/2/2004 which was the date on which U.P. Act No. 6 of 2004 was published in the Gazette. 17. When the matter was taken up on 6.7.2016 this Court had directed learned Standing Counsel to produce the original record in the matter and in compliance thereof the relevant record of the State Government has been produced by learned Advocate General. 18. 17. When the matter was taken up on 6.7.2016 this Court had directed learned Standing Counsel to produce the original record in the matter and in compliance thereof the relevant record of the State Government has been produced by learned Advocate General. 18. We have occasion to peruse the original record and what we find is that an undated complaint was made by one Vijay Singh, sitting Member of Legislative Assembly to the Minister concerned and an endorsement was made by the Minister concerned to the Secretary, Nagar Anubhag on 20.1.2015 with following effect: - "fot; flag] fo/kk;d] lektoknh ikVhZ 38] feyd] jkeiqjA Lksok esa] ekuuh; eks0 vkte [kkW lkgc] uxj fodkl ,oa lalnh; dk;Zea=h] m0iz0 'kklu] y[kuÅA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd }kjk lkIrkfgd cktkj esa yxHkx 103 nqdkuksa dk uo fuekZ.k dk uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd }kjk Vs.Mj tkjh dj fuekZ.k djk;k tk jgk gS ftlesa uxj ikfydk v/;{k o vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark }kjk lkaB&xkaB dj voS/k rjhds ls /ku dekus ds mnns'; ls nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k xjhc nqdkunkjksa dks mtkM dj djk;k tk jgk gSA mDr fo"k; esa vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh dh Hkqfedk lafnX/k gSA fnukad 8-1-2015 dks lektoknh ikVhZ ds f[kykQ Hkktik }kjk vEcsMdj ikdZ jkeiqj esa tks /kjuk gqvk Fkk mlesa ;g vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh 'kkfey FkkA bldks ogka ns[kk x;k FkkA dgrk gS eSa gWw dksbZ dgh ugh tk;sxk vkSj u gh fdlh eqfLye lHkkln dk ;k vU; fdlh eqfLye dk dk;Z djrk gS vkSj T;knk tksj nsus ij ekjihV djus ij vkeknk gks tkrk gS rFkk fjokYoj fn[kkrk gS dgrk gS fd >wBs eqdnesa esa Qlk nwWxkA esjs laKku esa vk;k gS fd vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh uxj esa voS/k rjhds ls /ku dh mxkgh djrk gSA ;g ,d Hkz"V vf/kdkjh gSA blds fo: ) 'kh?kz gh l[r ls l[r dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsA g0 fot; flag rqjUr lfpo uxj fodkl] mDr uxj ikfydk dks laj{k.k funs'kky; ls iZkIr gS ;g xEHkhj ckr gS A ;fn iUnzg fnuksa ds vUnj tkWp vk[;k vk uk lds rks vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dks vxys gh fnu fuyfEcr dj nsa rkfd tkWp ckf/kr uk gks A g0 ek0 vkte [kka 20-1-2015" 19. It is also reflected that on 24.2.2015 the Minister concerned had sent a detailed letter to the Secretary, Nagar Vikas for placing the Executive Officer under suspension and entrust some Senior Officer of the Directorate to conduct an enquiry against the Executive Officer as well as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad. Relevant portion is extracted below: - "eks0 vkte [kkW] ea=hA fnukad % 24-2-2015 lfpo] uxj fodklA d`i;k bl i= ds lkFk layXu ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqj ds fo'ks"k lfpo] uxj fodkl] m0iz0 'kklu dks lEcksf/kr i=kad 1986@,y0ch,0 fnukad 21 Qjojh] 2015 ¼Nk;kizfr½ rFkk mi&ftykf/kdkjh feyd] ftyk jkeiqj }kjk uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd] jkeiqj ds vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds fo: ) dh x;h f'kdk;r dh tkWp fo"k;d i=kad 20@,l0Vh0&tkWp&15 fnukad 20-12-2015 ¼Nk;kizfr½ dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsaA mDr tkWp vk[;k ds v/;;u ls izFke n`"V;k ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk nks"kh vf/kdkjh dks cpkus ds mn~ns'; ls dbZ LFkku ij detksj Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s rF;ksa dks fNikus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA bldk mn~ns'; blds vfrfjDr vkSj D;k gks ldrk gS fd ,d ,slk vf/kdkjh tks fcuk fdlh okftc otg ds M;wVh ij fjokYoj vius lkFk j[krk gks] mls cpkus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gSA ,d gknls esa rFkkdfFkr vf/kdkjh }kjk tu izfrfuf/k ls ekjihV djuk rFkk maxyh pck ysuk ,d ,slk d`R; gS tks vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gsA mfpr gksrk fd mDr vf/kdkjh dks rRdky gh fuyafcr dj fn;k tkrk A ;g Hkh fofnr jgs fd ftl fnu ;g ?kVuk ?kfVr gq;h mlh fnu ls v/;{k] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd jkeiqj xk;c gSA ijxukf/kdkjh feyd }kjk ?kVuk ds fnu gh uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd dk dk;kZy; lhy dj fn;k x;k FkkA blfy;s rqjUr fdlh vf/kdkjh ls tkWp djokrs gq;s ;g Hkh fn[kok ysa fd lHkh fjdkMZl egQwt gSa ;k ughA ;fn dksbZ fjdkMZ u feys rks v/;{k u0ik0 feyd ds fo: ) izkFkfedh ntZ djk;saA tkWp vk[;k esa mfYyf[kr fcUnqvksa rFkk vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk vUtke nh x;h 'keZukd ?kVuk n`f"Vxr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dks rRdky fuyafcr djsa rFkk v/;{k u0ik0 feyd jkeiqj lfgr nksuksa dh tkWp ds fy;s funs'kky; ls fdlh ofj"B vf/kdkjh dks ukfer djsaA layXud% ;FkksifjA g0 eks0 vkte [kka 24-2.2015" " 20. It is highly important to mention that the petitioner vide letter dated 12.3.2015 had apprised to Hon'ble Governor, State of UP about the political vendetta, which was hatched by the ruling party and on the said complaint Hon'ble Governor had taken a serious note of such letter and had written a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 12.3.2015. No doubt the cognizance had been taken by the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister, U.P. but nothing is reflected from the record in question to indicate that on the said complaint any concrete enquiry has been made by the Government. 21. After careful consideration of the entire record, we find that there is political taint in the action taken and undue interest taken by the Minister concerned as well as superior officers of the Government with a design to dislodge the petitioner as Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad in question. We have taken a judicial note about the interest of the Minister concerned but since the Minister concerned has not been made party in the present writ petition, we have not issued any notice to the Minister concerned and we are also not commenting any further in the said direction. In the present matter, there was extraordinary haste by the department concerned and only on the basis of the aforesaid show cause notice, the entire proceeding as per provisions contained under Section 48 of the Act had taken place. In the show cause notice as well as impugned order nowhere it is alleged that whatever work done by the petitioner could result into financial loss to the Corporation. 22. We have occasion to peruse the record in question and what we find in the present matter is that the District Magistrate, Rampur had proceeded to submit his report on 21.2.2015 and consequently a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and finally her financial and administrative powers were ceased. The said order had been assailed in Writ C No.15467 of 2015 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.4.2015 had accorded an interim order in her favour. 23. As per record this much is apparent that from day one either on one pretext or the other, the highhandedness of the State Government due to political vendetta was determined to dethrone the petitioner from the post in question. 23. As per record this much is apparent that from day one either on one pretext or the other, the highhandedness of the State Government due to political vendetta was determined to dethrone the petitioner from the post in question. When this Court had intervened in the matter and restored the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, the State Government had proceeded to initiate a full fledged enquiry in the matter. Each and every endorsement in the original file clearly reveals to this Court that the object was clear to remove the petitioner. In this regard, it is necessary to indicate the relevant notings of the Minister concerned dated 20.1.2015, 4.3.2015, 2.5.2016 and 17.5.2015. In the said enquiry the petitioner had proceeded to submit detailed reply on 30.3.2015. Thereafter the Director, Local Bodies, U.P. Lucknow had proceeded to submit reports on 15.9.2015 and 15.3.2016. In this background the State Government was somewhere cautious and proceeded to give her right of hearing vide order dated 31.3.2016 and the petitioner herself had proceeded to appear and submitted detailed report on 11.4.2016 and finally the present impugned order had been passed. While submitting her reply on 31.3.2016, she had proceeded to submit in categorical terms that she was never involved in any financial irregularities and against all the three charges, she had categorically submitted that she had not taken any decision with an object to usurp the money or do any financial irregularity. What we find from the record in question is that her reply was not considered in true sense and the entire proceedings were merely eyewash with an object to oust the petitioner. In this background, we have proceeded to consider the initial show cause notice and her reply. What we find from the record in question is that her reply was not considered in true sense and the entire proceedings were merely eyewash with an object to oust the petitioner. In this background, we have proceeded to consider the initial show cause notice and her reply. For ready reference the show cause notice dated 12.3.2015 is reproduced hereinafter: - "mRrj izns'k 'kklu uxj fodkl vuqHkkx&2 la[;k% 42M/9-2-15-21 lk@ 15 y[kuÅ fnukad% 12 ekpZ] 2015 dkj.k crkvks uksfVl Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd] tuin jkeiqj ds fo: ) izkIr f'kdk;rksa dh tkWp ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqj ls djk;h x;hA tkWpksijkUr ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqj ds i= la[;k 1986@ ,y0chlh0 fnukad 21-2-2015 ¼ Nk;kizfr layXu½ ds ek/;e ls izkIr vk[;k eas mfYyf[kr rF;ksa ds ijh{k.kksaijkUr laKku esa vk;s lR;kfir rF;ksa ls fofnr gS fd Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk uxj ikfydk ijf"kn] feyd }kjk vius drZC;ksa ds ikyu esa lrr pwd ,oa vius vf/kdkjksa dk vfrdze.k djrs gq, in dk nq: i;ksx fd;k x;k gSA ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqj dh tkWp vk[;kuqlkj Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk uxj ikfydk ijf"kn] feyd ds fo: ) fuEu vkjksi fl) ik;s% f'kdk;r la[;k ¼1½ ikfydk cksMZ dh CkSBd fnukad 10-9-2014 esa ikfjr izLrko la[;k&4 ds vuqlkj lkIrkfgd cktkj xzke feyd vlnqYykiqj ds xkVk la[;k 429@1-5820 gs0 Js.kh&6¼4½ esa iSekbZ'k djkus ds mijkUr voS/k dCtksa dks gVok dj lqfu;ksftr rjhds ls fodkl dk;Z djk;s tkus Fks fdUrq uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd }kjk mDr {ks= esa fcuk vfrdze.k gVok;s fodkl dk;ksZa gsrq fofHkUu lekpkj i=ksa esa fufonk;sa izdkf'kr djk nh x;hA cksMZ cSBd fnukad 10-9-2014 esa ikfjr izLrko esa lHkh oxksaZ ds O;fDr;ksa ds fgrksa dh vuns[kh dh x;h ,oa izLrko esa fodkl esa vkus okyh ykxr ,oa izkIr vk; vkfn dk dksbZ mYys[k ugh fd;k x;k gSA mDr d`R; xEHkhj vfu;ferrk ds lkFk lkFk v/;{k }kjk vius drZO; ds ikyu esa apwd Hkh ifjyf{kr djrk gSA f'kdk;r la[;k ¼2½ okMZ uEcj&8 iVsyuxj HkYyk dkyksuh esa b.VjykWfdax] feVVh o ukyh fuekZ.k dh fufonk;sa fudkys tkus ds mijkUr dk;Z izkjEHk gks tkus ij Hkh fnukad 6-2-2015 dks mUgh dk;ksZ dk Vs.Mj fudkyk x;kA mDr d`R; xEHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSa f'kdk;r la[;k ¼3½ ekal fodz; fd;s tkus ds ykbZlsal fn;s tkus ,oa mudk uohuhdj.k fd;s tkus gsrq ikfydk esa dksbZ mifof/k ugh cuk;h x;h tcfd m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e]1916 ds v/;k;&8 esa bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk izkfo/kku gSA mDr d`R; uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1916 ds micU/kksa dk mYy?kau gSA bl izdkj v/;{k }kjk vius drZO; ikyu esa pwd dh x;h ,oa vius v/kh{kh.kh; nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu u dj] m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1916 dk mYy?kau fd;k x;k gSA 2- Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd] jkeiqj ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds lUnHkZ esa ftykf/kdkjh jkeiqj dh tkWp vk[;k fnukad 21-2-2015 ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr vkjksiksa ds fl) ik;s tkus ds n`f"Vxr ek0 jkTiky egksn; m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1916 dh /kkjk&48 ¼2½ ¼d½ ,oa ¼[k½ dh mi/kkjk& VI, X, Xi ,oa Xii ds v/khu Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{k dks vij funs'kd] LFkkuh; fudk; ds ek/;e ls ;g Li"V djus ,oa dkj.k crkus ds funsZ'k nsrs gSa fd mDr vkjksi ds vk/kkj ij lrr pwd] vf/kdkjksa dk vfrdze.k rFkk nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa mnklhurk ds dkj.k v/;{kk] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd] jkeiqj ds in ls gVk fn;s tkus dh vkKk D;ksa u ns nh tk;sA 3- Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd ds fo: ) mfYyf[kr vkjksi xEHkhj izd`fr ds gSaA vr% vf/klwpuk la[;k 401@lkr&fo&1 ¼d½ 4&2005] fnukad 17-3-2005 esa mfYyf[kr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj mRrj izns'k uxj ikfydk ¼ lalks/ku½ vf/kfu;e 2005 ds izLrj&2 ds vuqlkj Jherh xaxokj ds foRrh; ,oa iz'kklfud vf/kdkjksa dks rc rd izfojr@ oafpr fd;k tkrk gS tc rd muds fo: ) fuxZr dh x;h dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl esa mfYyf[kr vkjksiksa ls mUgs fo;qDr ugh dj fn;k tkrk gSA mDr vof/k esa foRrh; ,oa iz'kklfud vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx@ fu"iknu gsrq ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqj m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1916 esa fufgr O;oLFkkuqlkj vxzsrj dk;Zokgh djsxsaA 4- ek0 jkT;iky egksn; ;g Hkh funsZ'k nsrs gSa fd ;g uksfVl izkIr gksus ds 15 fnu ds vUnj Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd] tuin jkeiqj dk okWfNr Li"Vhdj.k izkIr ugh gksrk gS rks ;g eku fy;k tk;sxk fd mUgsa vius cpko esa dqN ugh dguk gS vkSj izdj.k esa xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij vxzsrj dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dj nh tk;sxhA layXud ;FkksifjA ek0 jkT;iky egksn; dh vksj ls] g0 ¼ Jhizdk'k flag½ lfpo Jherh nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{kk] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] feyd] tuin jkeiqjA }kjk ftykf/kdkjh] jkeiqjA" 24. It is also relevant to indicate her reply which she had proceeded to submit on 11.4.2016 and same is reproduced hereinafter: - "isz"kd] nh{kk xaxokj] v/;{k] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd] tuin jkeiqj] m0iz0A lsok esa] Jh Jhizdk'k flag th] lfpo] uxj fodkl vuqHkkx&2] m0iz0 'kklu] y[kuÅA egksn;] vkidks voxr djkuk gS fd vkids i= la[;k 357@ ukS&2&16&21lk @ 15] y[kuÅ] fnukad 31 ekpZ 2016 dk lanHkZ djus dk d"V djsaA vkjksi la[;k&1 dk Li"Vhdj.k%& ;g f'kdk;r iw.kZr% vk/kkjghu o vfHkys[kksa ds fo: ) gSA cksMZ dh cSBd fnukad 10-9-2014 esa cgqer ls ikfjr izLrko la[;k&4 ds vuqlkj xkVk la0 429@ 1-5820 gS] Js.kh&6 ¼4½] fLFkr xzke feyd vLnqYykiqj] ftlesa iwoZ ls lkIrkfgd cktkj yxrk gS dk lqUnjhdj.k] QM fuekZ.k] nqdku fuekZ.k o b.Vjykfdax lMd dk fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k tkuk FkkA blh izLrko ds vUrxZr vafxze leLr dk;Zokgh@ vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks iw.kZ djus gsrq v/;{k ,oa vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gSA bl izLrko ds vuqdze esa vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk iSekb'k djkus ds mijkUr fuekZ.k dk uD'kk cuok;k x;kA ftlds vuqlkj fuekZ.k dk;Z gksuk FkkA iSekb'k ds le; fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vfrdze.k ugh ik;k x;k FkkA rRi'pkr fuekZ.k gsrq fu;ekuqlkj fofHkUu lekpkj i=ksa esa fufonk,Wa izdkf'kr djk;h xbZ rFkk fnukad 16-1-2015 dks vij ftyk vf/kdkjh jkeiqj ds dk;kZy; esa [kksyh xbZ vkSj rqyukRed fooj.k esa lcls U;wure fufonk dks fnukad 24-1-2015 dks v/;{k o vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk Lohd`r fd;k x;kA f'kdk;r la[;k& 1 esa vafdr gS fd izLrko fnukad 10-9-2014 lHkh oxksZ ds O;fDr;ksa ds fgrksa dh vuns[kh dh xbZ] ijUrq ;g vafdr ugh gS fd fdl oxZ ds fdl O;fDr ds fdu fgrksa dh vuns[kh dh xbZA ;g vkjksi vR;Ur gh Hkzked o vujxy gSA fdlh Hkh oxZ ds fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk vfgr fuekZ.k vkoaVu ds le; ns[kk tkuk Fkk] ijUrq vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds fiVk;h izdj.k fnukad 21-2-2015 rnksijkUr vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds tsy tkus ds dkj.k fuekZ.k gsrq dk;kZns'k tkjh gh ugh fd;s tk lds FksA ftl dkj.k ekSds ij fuekZ.k dk;Z gqvk gh ugh] ;fn nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k dk;Z gksrk rks nqdkuksa ds vkoaVu ds le; fdlh oxZ fo'ks"k ds f[kykQ vuns[kh dk vkjksi fl) gks ldrk FkkA bl f'kdk;r esa ;g Hkh vafdr gS fd izLrkko esa fodkl esa vkus okyh ykxr ,oa izkIr vk; vkfn dk dksbZ mYys[k ugh fd;k x;k gSA ;g f'kdk;r iw.kZr;k vifjiDo ,oa voS/kkfud gSA izLrko esa ykxr ,oa vk; dk fooj.k ugh fy[kk tkrk gSA fdlh Hkh dk;Z dks djkus ls igys voj vfHk;Urk }kjk ml dk dk;Z bLVhesV cuk;k tkrk gS rnksijkUr fufonk,a fudkyh tkrh gSa fufonkvksa dk rduhdh ewY;kadu o rqyukRed fooj.k rS;kj fd;k tkrk gSA mlds i'pkr dk;kZns'k tkjh fd;k tkrk gS vkSj fuekZ.k dk;Z gksus ds mijkUr voj vfHk;Urk }kjk ml dk;Z dk fcy cuk;k tkrk gS rFkk Hkqxrku ds fy, cksMZ dh cSBd esa j[kdj Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd mijksDr dk;Z esa izkfFkZuh }kjk dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugh dh xbZ gS] D;ksafd ekSds ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z ugh fd;k x;k vkSj u gh izkfFkZuh }kjk vius drZC;ksa ds ikyu esa dksbZ pwd dh xbZA vr% ;g vkjksi iw.kZr% fujk/kkj o vkSipkfjR;ghu gSA vkjksi la[;k&1 dk Li"Vhdj.k%& ds lEca/k esa dFku bl izdkj gS fd okMZ ua0 8 iVsy uxj HkYyk dkyksuh esa b.Vjykafdax] feVVh o ukyh fuekZ.k dh fufonk,a fnukad 29-1-2015 dks lekpkj i= vej mtkyk] nSfud tkxj.k esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ftlesa fufonk,a fnukad 6-2-2015 ds fy, vkeaf=r dh xbZ FkhA ftlesa dze la[;k 14 ij okMZ ua0 8 iVsy uxj HkYyk dksyksuh ds lEca/k esa fyfidh; =qfV ds dkj.k iqu% vkeaf=r dj yh xbZ FkhA ftls izkfFkZuh us vius i= fnukad 12-2-2015 }kjk fujLr dj fn;k Fkk] bl i= esa eheks fy[kuk Hkwy xbZ FkhA esjs }kjk fufonk fujLr djus dk i= vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh Jh /kqjsUnz flag dks fn;k x;k FkkA bl xEHkhj vfu;ferrk vkSj pwd ds fy, esjs }kjk fnukad 12-2-2015 dks Jh fQjkst eksgEen [kka] fyfid] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd tuin jkeiqj dks ,d uksfVl fn;k x;k FkkA ;g i= esjs dSEi dk;kZy; vkokl fLFkr vlnqYykiqj ubZ cLrh feyd ftyk jkeiqj dh QkbZy esa vafdr gS] ftldh Nk;kizfr lk{; ds : i esa layXu dj jgh gWwA bl fufonk izdk'ku ds vuqdze esa bl dk;Z ls lEcaf/kr dksbZ fufonk izkIr ugh dh xbZ vkSj u gh fdlh nsdsnkj dks dk;kZns'k tkjh fd;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izkfFkZuh }kjk dksbZ foRrh; vfu;ferrk ugh dh xbZA f'kdk;r fujk/kkj o vkSfpR;ghu gSA izkfFkZuh dks iw.kZr;k ekU; ugh gSA vkjksi la[;k&3 dk Li"Vhdj.k%& ds lEca/k esa dFku bl izdkj gS fd ekal fodz; ds ykbZlsal ,oa uohuhdj.k ds lEca/k esa mifof/k;ka cukbZ tk pqdh gSa] ijUrq turk ds Hkkjh vkdzks"k dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, xtV esa izdk'ku ugh djk;k tk ldkA vc izkfFkZuh }kjk vifRr;ksa dk fuLrkj.k djus ds mijkUr xtV esa izdk'ku djk fn;k tk;sxk rFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k 161@ lh0,e0@ ukS&9&97&23t@ 97 fnukad 16-12-1997 ds vUrxZr iwoZ ls gh ekal fodz; ds ykbZlsal ,oa uohuhdj.k djk;s tk jgs gSaA o"kZ 2014&15 esa 03 o 2015&16 esa 04 ykblsal dk uohuhdj.k fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj uxj ikfydk esa iwoZ ekal fodz; ds fy;s mDr 'kklukns'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh lEikfnr dh tk jgh gSA vr% vkjksi fujk/kkj o vkSfpR;ghu gSA vr,o egksn; ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkfFkZuh dks mDr rhuksa vkjksiksa ls eqDr djus dh d`ik djsaA izkfFkZuh g0 nh{kk xaxokj v/;{k] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn feyd] jkeiqj]" 25. We have also occasion to peruse all the three charges and the reply of the petitioner and find that in reply to charge no.1, the petitioner had categorically stated that although the work was started but because of the detention of the then Executive Officer by the police, no order could be passed and therefore, no construction took place and there is no financial or administrative irregularity done by the petitioner. In reply to charge no.2, the petitioner specifically stated that in notification dated 6.2.2015 the tender for the said work was again published but as soon as this irregularity came in her knowledge, she cancelled the tender in question vide order dated 12.2.2015 and also issued a letter dated 12.2.2015 to the concerned Clerk giving him a warning not to do such act in future. In reply to charge no.3, the petitioner had stated that the proposed bye-laws were framed and the objections were invited but since there was a massive protest of the public against the said proposed bye-laws, it could not be published in the gazette. 26. As per record this much is reflected that no major complaint had ever been sent to the State Government but due to local politics sitting Member of Legislative Assembly of ruling party as well as their corporators had proceeded to make certain complaint under political compulsion against the Chairman and Executive Officer and on the basis of that alleged complaint the entire proceeding had started. From very beginning just on cursory complaint the State Government from their top to bottom have started conspiring against the petitioner so that her political career may be ruined and she should be removed from the chairmanship. Earlier also she had been implicated in various cases but in a democratic set up the people are supreme and thrice she had been elected as Chairman. We have seen the entire record of the State Government and find that the entire enquiry is just eye-wash and at no point of time any concrete effort had ever been taken either at the level of District Magistrate or by the State Government to enquire into the matter whether actually on the spot there was any financial embezzlement or usurping the funds of the Nagar Palika Parishad in question. The entire material is silent on this score. 27. The petitioner holds the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad. The entire material is silent on this score. 27. The petitioner holds the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad. An amendment in the Constitution of India by adding Part-IX and IX-A confers upon the local self Government a complete autonomy on the basic democratic unit unshackled from official control. Thus, exercise of any power having effect of destroying the Constitutional Institution besides being outrageous is dangerous to the democratic set-up of this country. Therefore, an elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following the procedure prescribed by law, in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, by the State by adopting a casual approach and resorting to manipulations to achieve ulterior purpose. The Court being the custodian of law cannot tolerate any attempt to thwart the Institution. 28. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution, like other features e.g. Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law, Principle of separation of powers, Power of judicial review under Article 32, 226 and 227 etc. It is not permissible to destroy any of the basic features of the Constitution even by any form of amendment, and therefore, it is beyond imagination that it can be eroded by the executive on its whims without any reason. The Constitution accords full faith and credit to the act done by the executive in exercise of its statutory powers, but they have a primary responsibility to serve the nation and enlighten the citizens to further strengthen a democratic State. Public administration is responsible for the effective implication of the rule of law and constitutional commands which effectuate fairly the objective standard set for adjudicating good administrative decisions. However, wherever the executive fails, the Courts come forward to strike down an order passed by them passionately and to remove arbitrariness and unreasonableness for the reason that the State by its illegal action becomes liable for forfeiting the full faith and credit trusted with it. 29. Basic means the basis of a thing on which it stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In democracy all citizens have equal political rights. Democracy means "actual, active and effective exercise of power by the people in this regard. It means political participation of the people in running the administration of the Government. 29. Basic means the basis of a thing on which it stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In democracy all citizens have equal political rights. Democracy means "actual, active and effective exercise of power by the people in this regard. It means political participation of the people in running the administration of the Government. It conveys the State of affairs in which each citizen is assured of the right of equal participation in the polity. 30. The Hon'ble Apex Court examined the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, providing for the procedure of removal of the President of the Municipal Council on similar grounds in Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2524. The Court held that removal of an elected office bearer is a serious matter. The elected office bearer must not be removed unless a clear-cut case is made out, for the reason that holding and enjoying an office, discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the elected member but also of his constituency or electoral college. His removal may curtail the term of the office bearer and also cast stigma upon him. Therefore, the procedure under a particular provision for removal must be strictly adhered to and unless a clear case is made out, there can be no justification for his removal. While taking the decision, the authority should not be guided by any other extraneous consideration or should not come under any political pressure. In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision must show that the authority had applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office bearers sought to be removed. 31. In People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2363, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: - "The trite saying that "democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people" has to be remembered for ever. 31. In People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2363, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: - "The trite saying that "democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people" has to be remembered for ever. in a democratic republic, it is the will of the people that is paramount and becomes the basis of the authority of the Government. The will is expressed in periodic elections based on universal adult suffrage held by means of secret ballot. It is through the ballot that the voter expresses his choice or preference for a candidate "Voting is formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue", as observed by this Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha, (1993) 4 SCC 234 quoting from Black's Law Dictionary. The citizens of the country are enabled to take part in the Government through their chosen representatives. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, the Government of the day is responsible to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representative acts or is supposed to act as a live link between the people and the Government. The people's representatives fill the role of law-makers and custodians of the Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances." 32. A Full Bench of this Court in Iqbal Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1998 All C J 3, while considering the similar case under the provisions of U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 held that the State Government before passing the order, has to provide an opportunity to the Chairman/Member, who is sought to be removed. In the said case, it was also held that even if there was no requirement of furnishing the copy of the inquiry report to the office bearer, sought to be removed, it is mandatory on the part of the State Authority to serve the same and provide an opportunity to such an office bearer of putting his case before the State Government in writing and an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, would stand vitiated. The Full Bench has observed as under: - ".........in absence of any provision which expressly or by necessary implication includes the application of principles of natural justice or just and fair procedure, it is our considered view that the State Government before passing the order of confirmation has to provide an opportunity to the Chairman/Member, who is sought to be removed by supplying him a copy of the order passed by the Collector and provide him an opportunity of putting his case before the State Government in writing." 33. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office bearer can be removed without holding a full fledged inquiry. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government employees for the reason that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required. 34. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further period of five years, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal. 35. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sadanandan Vs. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal. 35. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sadanandan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1925 , held that if all the safeguards provided under the Rules are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, becomes liable to be quashed. 36. In S.C. Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 SC 1174 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not permissible to hold an inquiry on vague charges as the same does not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because he may not be aware as what is the allegation against ' him and what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof. The Supreme Court observed as under: "The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 37. In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the inquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet, the inquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 995 , the Apex Court held that even in a domestic inquiry the charge must be clear, definite, and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the inquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. 39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier judgments in Mohinder Kumar Vs. State, (1998) 8 SCC 655 ; State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 724 ; Ali Mustafa Abdul Rehman Moosa Vs. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 569 , held that it must be borne in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed. 40. In Dr. Meera Massey Vs. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1153 , the Apex Court observed as under: - "If the laws and principles are eroded by such institutions, it not only pollutes its functioning deteriorating its standard but also exhibits.............wrong channel adopted..........If there is any erosion or descending by those who control the activities all expectations and hopes are destroyed. If the institutions perform dedicated and sincere service with the highest morality it would not only up-lift many but bring back even a limping society to its normalcy." 41. In U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors., v. Ram Chandra Yadav (2000) 9 SCC 327 , while dealing with a similar case, the Apex Court held as under: "In other words, what is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation, whether he has been given an opportunity to state his case and whether the departmental authority has acted in good faith. If these requirements are satisfied then it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has been violated." 42. If these requirements are satisfied then it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has been violated." 42. The power of judicial review of the writ court is limited, but it has competence to examine as to whether there was material to form such an opinion as required by law. It further requires a full fledged opportunity of explanation, which implies that the member should be permitted to examine the witnesses against him and if necessary to cross-examine them and produce evidence in his defence or the findings recorded by the authority concerned are perverse. It is settled law that non-consideration of relevant material renders an order perverse. A finding is said to be perverse when the same is not supported by evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularities. 43. When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been hitherto an uncontroverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim " Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following some other course is not permissible. This maxim has consistently been followed, as is evident from the cases referred to above. It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not as per the rules or regulations and supported by a statute, the Court without entering into the issue of sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence, must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid as naked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law. 44. The State has to further discharge its burden of establishing that there has been no violation of the principles of audi alteram partem. The procedure provided under the Rules is extensive and defines every step to be followed. Any violation thereof would render the proceedings to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice. 44. The State has to further discharge its burden of establishing that there has been no violation of the principles of audi alteram partem. The procedure provided under the Rules is extensive and defines every step to be followed. Any violation thereof would render the proceedings to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice. The law on the aforesaid subject, therefore, has to be considered before recording our findings. 45. The purpose of holding inquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charge against him or imposing penalty, rather it is conducted with the object of recording the truth and in that sense the outcome of an inquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand and result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is of a paramount necessity. The authority concerned cannot penalise the delinquent on an allegation which is not a part of the charge-sheet, as it would be an order beyond the charge against the delinquent and it cannot be sustained. 46. In a given case the Inquiry Officer may collect certain information during the inquiry behind the back of the delinquent. Unless it is disclosed to him and the delinquent is given an opportunity to explain, the said material cannot be relied upon. Inquiry officer is not entitled to collect evidence behind the back of the delinquent on a charge framed against him and arrive at his finding on the basis of that private inquiry. 47. Where a delinquent is given a show cause notice, it has to be considered objectively and not subjectively. The authority is under an obligation to specify as which part of the explanation of the delinquent is not acceptable and for what reason otherwise it would be a case of non-application of mind or not recording the reasons. During the course of enquiry, every document which is being relied upon by the Department and by the Inquiry Officer to record a finding must be supplied to the delinquent failing which the inquiry would not be in accordance with law and the authority must act in good faith otherwise the proceedings would stand vitiated. 48. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice- in facts or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. 48. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice- in facts or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object mala fide exercise of power does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended." It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. 49. Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as in trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact -situation of a case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them". Decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. Authority is under legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other. 50. In such a case, authority has to satisfy that it has acted reasonably in a fair and just manner and whatever the statutory mandate requires must be honoured by the State. No deviation of the requirement of the procedure is permissible if the statute provides for severe consequence. Undoubtedly, the interest of the State is supreme but every action of the State must be right, just and fair. 51. No deviation of the requirement of the procedure is permissible if the statute provides for severe consequence. Undoubtedly, the interest of the State is supreme but every action of the State must be right, just and fair. 51. In view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, we are of the view that it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to have dealt with the matter with open mind, instead of proceeding in a predetermined manner by drawing conclusions against the petitioner and by totally proceeding to discredit the explanation furnished by petitioner on its whims and fancies. 52. All the three charges are vague and evasive and the procedure adopted by the respondents is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 53. It appears that the officer who held the enquiry was not aware of any procedure or law required to be followed for conducting the enquiry. The enquiry has been conducted in a most unwarranted, uncalled for and scandalous manner and a duly elected Chairperson of Nagar Palika Parishad has been removed without following any procedure required for the removal of such a office bearer. The charges have not all been substantiated by any cogent evidence as no one has come forward to even remotely suggest that petitioner on account of such activity would be benefited in any manner. Passing this kind of order of removal amounts to gross abuse of the power vested in the authority concerned. 54. In a given case, where the misconduct is not of a grave nature, imposing the penalty of removal under the Act may be disproportionate and attract the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as in such a case the punishment so awarded would not only be disproportionate to the misconduct but also arbitrary and unreasonable. Under Section 48 (Z-A) of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, major as well as minor action has been provided and in the facts of the case we do not understand why extreme step has been taken in the said direction. 55. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner had been in contravention of the Statutory Rules, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated 23.6.2016 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is liable to be quashed. 56. 55. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner had been in contravention of the Statutory Rules, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated 23.6.2016 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is liable to be quashed. 56. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed The order impugned dated 23.6.2016 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith restore the petitioner to the post of Adhyaksha, Nagar Palika Parishad Milak, Rampur.