JUDGMENT : SANJAY HARKAULI, J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure 1) by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of the President/Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur, District Sitapur and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to exercise the powers, functions and duties as Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur, District Sitapur. 2. Briefly stated the petitioner's case is that he was elected to the post of President/Chairman on 07.07.2012. After the post was brought into the general category, the petitioner along with one Jasmeer contested the election and the petitioner was elected while Jasmeer was defeated. Jasmeer who belongs to a political party having strong political relations could not digest his defeat and accordingly set up the opposite party no.6 who made an ante-dated complaint to the opposite party no.2 on false and baseless allegations against the petitioner. The opposite party no.2 without verifying the correctness of the complaint issued a letter dated 01.01.2015 and initiated an inquiry against the petitioner by constituting a three member committee comprising of (i) Special Secretary, Department of Urban Development; (ii) Assistant Director, Local Bodies, U.P. (Member); and (iii) Executive Engineer Construction and Design Services, U.P., Jal Nigam, Lucknow. In pursuance of the letter dated 01.01.2015, the officer In-charge, Local Bodies/Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur wrote a letter on 03.01.2015 to the Executive officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur requiring him to provide necessary records and information to the aforesaid inquiry committee. The inquiry committee asked the petitioner as also the Executive officer, Nagar Palika Parisad, Laharpur to submit report on points mentioned in the complaint. Both these persons submitted their report dated 20.01.2015 explaining each and every point stated therein. The Special Secretary/President of the inquiry committee called for a report from the revenue authorities also in respect of the land of old and new slaughter houses of Nagar Palika. The Tehsildar, Laharpur submitted his report dated 15.01.2015 stating therein that the previous slaughter house was being run over the land of Gata No.1774 area 0.138 hec. of village Lachhan Nagar which is now lying vacant and is recorded in the name of Salma Begum as bhumidhar with transferable rights. With regard to slaughter house over the land of Gata No.6261/1 area 0.166 hec. of village Lachhan Nagar which is now lying vacant and is recorded in the name of Salma Begum as bhumidhar with transferable rights. With regard to slaughter house over the land of Gata No.6261/1 area 0.166 hec. situate at village Prahladpur, the Tehsildar stated that it was earlier recorded in the name of Maula Baksh and Moharamm Ali, sons of Noor Baksh as bhumidhar with transferable rights, who had transferred the land in favour of Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur by means of sale deed dated 08.11.2013 and mutation in favour of Nagar Palika had also taken place on 27.12.2013. With regard to the land of Gata No.830 area 0.198 hec. of village Prahladpur, it was stated by the Tehsildar that an area of 0.49 acres of Gata No.830 has been found to be recorded in the name of Kheman in Ziman 5(2) of Khatauni 1337 Fasli. In 1367 Fasli, the land of Gata No.830 area 0.49 acre was recorded as Talab and Gata No.830 area 0.198 hec. was recorded in Ziman 4 of Khatauni of 1407 Fasli. In the Khatauni of 1420 Fasli, the said land had been ordered to be recorded in the name of Smt. Mohammadan. During spot inspection, the houses of Ramjan Haji Mushir Ahmad, Smt. Isfana Bano, Chhotey, Ali Hasan, Moinuddin and Ashiq have been found constructed thereon. The said report also mentions that the roads over the aforesaid land have been constructed by the erstwhile President Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur. 3. The aforesaid three member inquiry committee submitted its report dated 28/19-01-2015 to the Secretary, Urban Development referring therein to the report of the Sub-Divisional officer dated 15.01.2015 and the reply of the petitioner dated 20.01.2015. It is stated therein that the previous slaughter house was being run over the land of Gata No.1774 area 0.138 hec of village Lachhan Nagar which is now lying vacant. The land is recorded in the name of the Salma Begum as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. The officers of Pollution Control Board, U.P. inspected the site on 15.09.2012 and raised objection against slaughtering in open space and ultimately an order dated 03.07.2013 for closing the slaughter house was issued. When the Nagar Palika Parishad intended to construct the slaughter house over the said land, the owner Smt. Salma Begum obtained a decree of injunction dated 06.05.2013 of Civil Court. 4. With regard to issue no. When the Nagar Palika Parishad intended to construct the slaughter house over the said land, the owner Smt. Salma Begum obtained a decree of injunction dated 06.05.2013 of Civil Court. 4. With regard to issue no. 2, it was stated that new slaughter house is situated over the land of Gata No.626/1 area 0.166 hec. This land was earlier recorded in the name of Maula Baksh and Moharram Ali sons of Noor Baksh as bhumidhar with transferable rights who had transferred the land by sale deed dated 08.11.2013 in favour of Nagar Palika, Parishad and mutation had also taken place accordingly. The market value of the land of Gata No.626/1 purchased for slaughter house is Rs.58,10,000/- but the same has been purchased against the sale consideration of Rs.5.98 lakhs. In respect of certain other charges relating to construction works carried out within the municipal limit, the inquiry committee collected samples of base concrete and sent them for testing to the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow and test report was awaited. 5. That after lapse of four months from the date of submission of the inquiry report dated 29.01.2015, the Joint Secretary to the State Government vide order dated 21.04.2015 supplied a copy of the aforesaid inquiry report dated 29.01.2015 to the petitioner and in the said letter, it was stated that the charges against the petitioner were prima-facie found to be proved which warrant removal of the petitioner from his office under the provisions of Section 48 of U.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation as to why detailed inquiry may not be conducted in the matter. It can be seen that in the said letter, there is no mention of the result of the testing report, which was awaited. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 07.05.2015 to the Joint Secretary categorically denying the charges levelled against him. 6. According to the petitioner, it is surprising that while the respondents were proceeding against the petitioner vide letter dated 21.04.2015 on the basis of the inquiry report dated 29.01.2015 but simultaneously, the opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 10.04.2015 appointed the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow as inquiry officer to inquire into the charges in respect of the undated complaint of Sri Ateeq Khan (opposite party no.6). What necessitated a second inquiry by an authority lower in rank to the three member committee, which was already investigating into the charges levelled against the petitioner, is itself indicative of malice against the petitioner. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow made an inquiry on 02.05.2015 along with the Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow although as per the letter dated 28.04.2015 issued to the District Magistrate, Sitapur it was stated that on technical points a team comprising of Chief Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer had been constituted to make a local inspection on 02.05.2015 and hence they may coordinate in the spot inquiry to be conducted as aforesaid. Yet the inspection was got done by the Municipal Commissioner accompanied by Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer. The opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 24.06.2015 supplied a copy of the aforesaid inquiry report dated 04.06.2015 to the petitioner in which it has been stated that prima-facie charges in the letter have been found to be proved and warrant removal of the petitioner from his office. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation. 7. A perusal of the letter dated 24.06.2015 goes to show that it was nothing but a repetition of the previous letter / charge-sheet dated 21.04.2015. The petitioner again submitted his explanation dated 23.07.2015 in response to the aforesaid letter dated 24.06.2015 and categorically denied all the charges placing thereby correct facts. This explanation of the petitioner was not considered at all by the opposite party no.2. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow without making proper inquiry and also without properly considering the reply of the petitioner dated 23.07.2015 submitted his report holding therein in an arbitrary manner that all the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. On the basis of second report dated 03.08.2015 submitted by the Municipal Commissioner, the opposite party no.2 issued a show cause notice dated 14.08.2015 whereby the petitioner was required to show cause within fifteen days as to why he may not be removed from his office. The opposite party no.2 instead of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 07.05.2015 and 23.07.2015 and without applying his own mind to the facts and evidence on record, chose to place reliance on the report of the Municipal Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2015. The opposite party no.2 instead of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 07.05.2015 and 23.07.2015 and without applying his own mind to the facts and evidence on record, chose to place reliance on the report of the Municipal Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2015. The petitioner also states that under G.O. no.2782/9-6-2009 dated 05.10.2009 mentioning therein that provisions of Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam had clearly stated that the District Magistrate is the competent authority in matters relating to Nagar Palika and if the inquiry is made by any other officer against the President of the Nagar Palika, the report of such inquiry must be countersigned/recommended by the District Magistrate. 8. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply dated 26.08.2015 to the opposite party no.2 through the District Magistrate, Sitapur praying for exoneration from the charges but instead the Sub- Divisional officer, the opposite party no.5 was directed to exercise the powers of the President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur, District Sitapur vide order dated 19.08.2015. 9. The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit and their case is that Sri Ateeq Khan, the respondent no.6 had submitted a complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioners had got work done outside the city limits and the work and quality of the construction was extremely poor and below standard. The said complaint was sent by the Government to the Special Secretary, Nagar Vikas for inquiring into the complaint and for that purpose, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Special Secretary, Nagar Vikas by means of order dated 01.01.2014. In pursuance of the aforesaid inquiry, a report dated 29.01.2015 was submitted to the Government and after examining the said report and upon finding eight charges to be prima facie proved, a letter dated 21.04.2015 was issued asking the petitioner through the District Magistrate Sitapur to submit his explanation. At the same time, after the approval of the competent authority, the matter was sent for re-inquiry by the government through its letter dated 10.04.2015 appointing the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow as the inquiry officer requiring him to submit his report within 30 days. The said inquiry officer submitted his report through the letter dated 04.06.2015. 10. At the same time, after the approval of the competent authority, the matter was sent for re-inquiry by the government through its letter dated 10.04.2015 appointing the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow as the inquiry officer requiring him to submit his report within 30 days. The said inquiry officer submitted his report through the letter dated 04.06.2015. 10. After examining the report of the inquiry officer and finding that the charges against the petitioner were prima-facie proved, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by means of letter dated 14.06.2015. At the same time, the Municipal Commissioner, was directed to serve a copy to the petitioner to receive his explanation and offer the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereafter submit his report keeping in view the Government Order dated 05.10.2009. In pursuance thereof, the Municipal Commissioner considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 23.07.2015 submitted his report dated 03.08.2015. The Government considered the report of the Municipal Commissioner and after due approval had issued a show cause notice dated 14.08.2015 and also seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. The petitioner choose to file a writ petition No.8259 (MB) of 2015 against the said order but the same was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 14.08.2015 on 26.08.2015 and thereafter submitted a supplementary reply dated 30.11.2015. Both of these explanations were directed to be examined by the Municipal Commissioner through letter dated 28.12.2015. The Municipal Commissioner after examining the explanation and supplementary report submitted his report by letter dated 01.03.2016. The said report was made available to the petitioner by means of letter dated 28.03.2016 by the government further requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation and to appear for personal hearing on 06.04.2016. The petitioner accordingly appeared in person and his written statement as submitted was taken on record on 06.04.2016. 11. After examining all these materials, five of the six charges that were levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved and consequently, the order dated 24.05.2016 was issued removing the petitioner from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur, District Sitapur. Accordingly, the respondent states that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 12. Learned counsel for both the sides were heard at length and the material available on record has been perused. 13. Accordingly, the respondent states that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 12. Learned counsel for both the sides were heard at length and the material available on record has been perused. 13. According to the petitioner, a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry. The submission is that an elected official in local self government, who stands on even a higher pedestal cannot be removed from office without holding a full fledged inquiry as propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of R.Y. Bhoir; 2012 (4) SCC 407 . 14. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, the relevant statutory provision i.e. Section 48 of the Act of 1916 is extracted herein under: "48. Removal of President.- (1) ...... 14. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, the relevant statutory provision i.e. Section 48 of the Act of 1916 is extracted herein under: "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 Board; 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 Board or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the Board 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 Board; 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 Board, acting as President or Vice-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 will-fully 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 Board 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 Vice-President, exercising the powers of President or as Vice President ; or as member 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. [(2-A)]. After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office. Provided that in a case where the State Government has issued notice in respect of any ground mentioned in clause (a) or sub clause (ii) (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii) or (viii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) it may instead of removing him give him a warning. 15. 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. 16. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognised 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 implementation of the rule of law and constitutional commands which effectuate fairly the objective standard set for adjudicating good administrative decisions. Public administration is responsible for the effective implementation 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 v. 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. 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. Same set of principle has been re-affirmed in the case of Sharda Kailash Mittal v. State of M.P. 2010 (2) SCC 319 with further observation that recourse should be taken to remove such authority only for very strong and weighty reason, such a power is not to be exercised for minor irregularities in discharge of duties by the holder of elected post. The provision has to be construed in strict manner because the holder of office occupies it by election and he/she is deprived of the office by an executive order in which electorate has no chance of participation. 19. In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. 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 v. 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 lawmakers and custodians of the Government. 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 lawmakers and custodians of the Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances." 20. A Full Bench of this Court in Iqbal Ahmad v. 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." 21. 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. 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. 22. 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. 23. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sadanandan v. 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. 24. 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." 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier judgments in Mohinder Kumar v. State, (1998) 8 SCC 655 ; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 724 ; Ali Mustafa Abdul Rehman Moosa v. 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. 28. In Dr. Meera Massey v. 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." 29. 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." 30. 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. 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. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nanha and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others reported at 1975 AWC 1 All (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7294 of 1971 decided on 15.05.1973) in paragraph 17, it was observed as under: "If it appears that a court of fact has in substance based its findings on no evidence or that its finding is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could possibly come to that conclusion or that it erroneously ignores a vital plea or material evidence which affects the result, a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record leading to failure of justice can be said to be established. But if a court or a tribunal bases its finding on a consideration of all relevant evidence, but an appellate or a revisional court or tribunal while affirming the finding does not refer to some material or contrary evidence in its order it cannot be said that it has been ignored from consideration so as to entitle the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution." 31. 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. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 34. 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. 35. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malicein 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 37. 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. The aforesaid legal principles have been explained and applied by us in a somewhat similar nature of controversy in a recent decision in the case of Smt. Vandana v. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.11447 of 2016 decided on 10.02.2017 38. It is in the light of the aforesaid legal position that we proceed to examine the inquiry report with a view to analyse as to whether the aforesaid inquiry was conducted in accordance with law. 39. The charge-sheet given to the delinquent / petitioner and the explanation submitted thereon by the petitioner was got examined by the inquiry officer and acting upon the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority ultimately passed the impugned order. The inquiry report of the Municipal Commissioner is annexed to the writ petition. 40. 39. The charge-sheet given to the delinquent / petitioner and the explanation submitted thereon by the petitioner was got examined by the inquiry officer and acting upon the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority ultimately passed the impugned order. The inquiry report of the Municipal Commissioner is annexed to the writ petition. 40. The first charge as shown in inquiry report, the explanation given by the petitioner and the analysis of the evidence in support of the first charge and the conclusion of the inquiry officer is extracted hereunder: 1- vkjksi la0&1 uxj ikfydk ifj"kn esa fufeZr LykVj gkml o"kksZa iwoZ cuk gqvk Fkk ftldh yxHkx 12 o"kZ iwoZ ejEer ,oa lq/kkj dk;Z djkdj Hkqxrku ,oa u;s LykVj gkml ds fy, jkT; ljdkj dh vuqefr ds fcuk cktkj Hkko ls nksxquk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA mRrj& v/;{k }kjk vius mRrj esa ;g voxr djk;k x;k gS fd iqjkus LYkkVj gkml fefYd;r lk{; uxj ikfydk ds i{k esa ugha gSA blls uxj ikfydk dks dksbZ Hkh ykHk feyuk lEHko ugha gSA ek0 tuin U;k;ky; ds odhy ,oa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds odhy }kjk vihy u nk;j djus dks ijke'kZ nsus ds QyLo:i muds vfHker ds vk/kkj ij vihu ugha nk;j dh x;hA v/;{k vkSj vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds Lrj ij drZO;ksa ds izfr mnklhurk dk vjksi iw.kZr;% vlR; rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA u;s LykVj gkml ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd vkx.ku dh rduhdh Lohd`fr vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izk0 [k0 yks0 fu0 fo0 lhrkiqj }kjk iznku dh x;h] o fuekZ.k dk;Z dh vuqefr ftykf/kdkjh egksn; lhrkiqj }kjk iznku dh x;hA mijksDr dk Hkqxrku fcy ij voj vfHk;Urk] lgk;d vfHk;Urk izk0 [k0 yks0 fu0 fo0 lhrkiqj ,oa vij ftykf/kdkjh egksn; lhrkiqj }kj Hkqxrku fcy ij dk;Z lUrks"ktud gksus dh fVIi.kh vafdr djus ds mijkUr o ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ds vkns'k ds mijkUr Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk u;s LykVj gkml dh Hkwfe dks cktkj Hkko ls vf/kd nj ij dz; djus ds lEcU/k esa f'kdk;r ugha dh x;h gSA bl izdkj f'kdk;rh fcUnq&01 ij esjs mij dksbZ vkjksi ugha curk gSA tkap vk[;k& mYys[kuh; gS fd ewyokn la[;k&456@08 ds fu.kZ; esa uxj ikfydk }kjk ;g i{k j[kk x;k fd layXud&1% fookfnr Hkwfe&3 [kljk la[;k& 1772] 1773] 1774] 1775 ftldk pdcUnh iwoZ uEcj xkVk la[;k&1015] 1016] 1019] 1020 Fkk] ls lEcf/kar izFke pdcUnh iwoZ esa uEcjku xkVk la[;k&1782] 1783] 1786] 1787 dze'k% cUnksiLr gky esa et:ck vkfn vafdr Fks] ftldh ns[kHkky ygjiqj esa uxj ikfydk vkus ds i'pkr~ izfroknhx.k dj jgs gSA bl dkj.k ls fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknh }kjk xyr izdkj ls vius uke vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr djk fy;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknh dk u rks dHkh dCtk jgk vkSj u gh fof/kor~ mldk dksbZ LokfeRo gSA fookfnr Hkwfe tks i'kqo/k'kkyk ds :i esa iz;ksx dh tkrh gS] ftldh rgcktkjh uxj ikfydk olwy djrh gS] ls oknh dk dksbZ lEca/k o ljksdkj ugha gSA oknh }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe ij viuk uke jktLo deZpkfj;ksa ls feydj vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr djkdj fookfnr Hkwfe ij dCtk djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ftldk mls dkj.k uxj ikfydk dks djksM+kas :i;s dk uqdlku gqvk ;g Hkwfe ygjiqj ds e/; esa fLFkr gS] ftldk {ks=Qy vfHkys[kks ds vuqlkj 0-5340 gs0 rFkk vkoklh; o O;olkf;d n`f"V ls dherh gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd dzsrk leyk csxe v/;{k dh iRuh gS] fdUrq Hkwfe dz; ds le; xEHkhj vkjksiksa ls cpus ds fy, v/;{k iRuh ds firk dk uke Myok;k gS] tks rF;ksa dks fNikdj uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dh tehu gM+ius dk lqfu;ksftr d`R; gS] ftlls uxj ikfydk dks djksM+ks :i;s dh vkfFkZd gkfu igqaph gSA blds fy, uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ds v/;{k ,oa vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds lafyIrrk rFkk drZO;ksa ds izfr mnklhurk Li"V ifjyf{kr gksrh gSA LFkyh; fujh{k.k ,oa ds ijh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd u;s LykVj gkml ds fuekZ.k esa dksbZ Mh0ih0vkj0 ugha cuk;h vkSj u gh dksbZ rduhfd fo'ys"k.k lEca/kh vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;s x;sA LFky ij lkFk ek= rhu VSadksa dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] ftlds vkSfpR; ds lEca/k esa dksbZ miyC/k ugha djk;s rFkk bZ0Vh0ih0 bUQ~;q,UV V~hVesUV IykUV dk Hkh dksbZ fooj.k djk;k x;kA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd LykVj gkml dk fuekZ.k fcuk Mh0ih0vkj0 ds fdlh i;kZoj.k@rduhfd fo'ks"kK dh jk; fy;s fcuk fd;k x;k] tcfd izeq[k lfpo] fodkl foHkkx dh v/;{krk esa fnukad 25-04-2013 layXud&3 esa lEiUu cSBd esa lHkh fudk;ksa dks bl lEca/k esa foLr`r fn'kk&funsZ'k fn;s x;sA bl izdkj i;kZoj.k ds lEca/k esa x;s izkfo/kku LFky ij ifjyf{kr ugha gq;s rFkk u gh bl lEca/k esa vukifRr izkIr fd;s m0iz0 iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ ls fd;s x;s i=kpkjksa lEca/kh vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;s x;s LykVj gkml dh vfu;ksftr fuekZ.k rFkk i;kZoj.k lEca/kh fcUnqvksa ij fopkj fd;s fcuk :0 &71]12]000-00 dk O; nkf;Roksa dk fuokZgu u djus gsrq v/;{k eks0 glhu [kkW] rFkk orZeku vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh Jh ih0,u0 nhf{kr rFkk rRdkyhu o orZeku voj Jh vkQrkc vgen nks"kh gSA fu"d"kZ& v/;{k }kjk fn;k x;k mRrj Hkzked] rF;ksa ls ijs gSA vr% vkjksi fl)] gSA The charge as can be seen is to the effect that the slaughter house, which was built quite sometime back and which was renovated about 12 years back entailed expenditure, which was paid by the petitioner and without seeking permission for constructing of a new slaughter house, double the amount of market rate was paid by the petitioner therefor from the funds of the Nagar Palika Parishad. The petitioner in his reply has stated that a civil case at the district level was decided against the Corporation and it was advised by the District Court and the High Court lawyers that there was no purpose in preferring an appeal and it was accordingly decided not to file an appeal, which would not amount to dereliction of duty. He has further submitted that the construction and renovation was got done after obtaining technical affirmation from the Executive Engineer of the PWD Sitapur and the construction was got done after the requisite permission was accorded by the District Magistrate, Sitapur. Further, the payment was made only after the work was found to be satisfactory upon inspection by the Junior Engineer and the Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur and further the Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur had given his assent to the payment therefor. The inquiry officer expressed his opinion to the effect that after the decree in the Civil Suit, the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue authorities had got the name of his wife mutated in the records and thereafter tried to take illegal possession of the land in question thereby causing loss to the Nagar Palika Parishad to the tune of crores of rupees. The plaintiff was stated to be the wife of the delinquent petitioner and this fact was deliberately concealed by the petitioner. Further, upon spot inspection, it was found that the required DPR was not used in the construction and renovation and no documents regarding technical analysis of the construction were made available by the petitioner. Only three tanks were seen to be constructed on the spot and for the same as also for ETP, no justification was afforded by the petitioner. Accordingly, the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that no environment/ technical expert was consulted, while getting the aforesaid work done in spite of the direction of the Principal Secretary Development Department vide orders dated 25.04.2013. Total amount of Rs.71,12,000/- was spent in this work without sufficient justification and accordingly, the charge was found to be proved. This analysis nowhere goes to show that it is based on any evidence in respect of which proper opportunity of rebuttal was afforded to the petitioner. Total amount of Rs.71,12,000/- was spent in this work without sufficient justification and accordingly, the charge was found to be proved. This analysis nowhere goes to show that it is based on any evidence in respect of which proper opportunity of rebuttal was afforded to the petitioner. What records were examined in this respect and which official did undertake this spot inspection is nowhere narrated nor any such person was examined nor opportunity of his cross examination is shown to have been afforded to the petitioner. Whether the amount was paid after approval by way of spot inspection and after obtaining necessary assent from the authorities concerned by the petitioner has also not been examined in this analysis and therefore, the conclusion arrived at cannot be said to be based on evidence taken during inquiry and its proper analysis. The guiding factor seems to be that Salma Begum was the wife of the petitioner, which factor alone could not have been made the basis of finding the accused guilty of this charge. 41. The guiding factor seems to be that Salma Begum was the wife of the petitioner, which factor alone could not have been made the basis of finding the accused guilty of this charge. 41. The second charge; explanation of the petitioner in relation to the said charge; the analysis of the inquiry officer; and the conclusion arrived by him is extracted as hereunder: 2- vkjksi la0&2 ehjk Vksyk fpexksnj ds lkeus ej?kfV;k rkykc dks ikVdj lSdM+ksa IykV csp nsukA mRrj%& ehjk VksYkk dh Hkwfe dk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk Js.kh ifjorZu djuk mldks fu:) djuk jktLo ds {ks= ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA iz'uxr Hkwfe xkVk la0&830 jdck 0-198 gs0 gSA ftl ij 7 o"kksZa iwoZ ls fufeZr gSA mijksDr Hkwfe ls lVh gq;h vU; Hkw[k.M ij cslesUV dk fuekZ.k djk;k jgk Fkk] ftldks uxj ikfydk }kjk uksfVl nsdj jksd fn;k x;k gS] rFkk fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh tk jgh gSA mijksDr Hkwfe dk cSukek esjs ifjokj ds fdlh lnL; }kjk ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u iz'uxr fcUnq dk eq>ls lEcU/k gSa iz'uxr Hkwfe ij lM+dksa dk fuekZ.k o"kZ 2007 esa esjs ls yxHkx 5 o"kZ iwoZ djk;k x;k gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd iz'uxr fcUnq esa iwoZ v/;{k dh izrhr gksrh gSA ml le; eSa v/;{k ugha Fkk] blfy;s esjs mij ;g vkjksi yxk;k tkuk iw.kZr;% vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gSA tkap vk[;k%& rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj dqN Hkkx rkykc ds :i esa ntZ gSA LFkyh; fujh{k.k esa ns[kk x;k fd rkykc dk vfLrRo gh ugh gS rFkk mDr LFky ij Hkou fufeZr @ fuekZ.kk/khu gSA vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk crk;k x;k fd uxj ikfydk esa Hkwfe LokfeRo ds lEca/k esa dksbZ vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha gSaA vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ls bl lEca/k esa tkudkjh pkgh x;h fd uxj ikfydk ifj"kn }kjk bl fufeZr Hkouksa ds lEca/k eas D;k dk;Zokgh dh x;h rks vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd pwWfd ;g edku rkykc esa cuk;s x;s gS blfy;s bu Hkouksa ij u rks x`gdj vkjksfir gksrk gS vkSj u gh bu Hkouksa dk uD'kk ikl fd;k tkrk gSA ;gkW ij ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS mDr Hkwfe ij ,d cslesUV dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk jgk Fkk] lqyHk lanHkZ gsrq QksVksxzkQ layXu gS layXud&5 bl lEca/k esa vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd fuekZ.k ds lEca/k esa mUgs tkudkjh ugha Fkh u gh fuekZ.kdrkZ ds ikl dksbZ Lohd`fr ekufp= miyC/k FkkA rkykc esa fuekZ.k ds lEcU/k esa fyf[kr vk[;k ekaxs tkus ij muds }kjk dksbZ vk[;k miyC/k ugha djk;h x;hA fu"d"kZ& bl izdkj v/;{k }kjk rF;iw.kZ vk[;k ugha izLrqr dh x;h gSA vr% vkjksi fl) gSa The entire analysis in relation to this charge is based on the inquiry made from the Executive officer and non-submission of any sanctioned map by the petitioner to the Executive officer. In the circumstances, the conclusion was arrived at that this charge was proved. No official record of the status of the land in question was perused and the Executive officer whose report was totally depended upon, was neither examined nor any opportunity of his cross examination was afforded to the petitioner during the inquiry. 42. In the circumstances, the conclusion was arrived at that this charge was proved. No official record of the status of the land in question was perused and the Executive officer whose report was totally depended upon, was neither examined nor any opportunity of his cross examination was afforded to the petitioner during the inquiry. 42. The third charge; the explanation of the petitioner; the analysis of the inquiry officer; and his conclusion is extracted as hereunder: vkjksi la0&3 bZnxkg efLtn rFkk iDds rkykc esa fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;s x;s] tks fd uxj ikfydk ygjiqj dh lhek ls ckgj ,oa bZnxkg ds ckgj b.Vjykfdax ds uhps iz;qDr 1%6%12 esa bZaV dh fxV~Vh v/kksekud gSA eksgYyk cgyksyiqj esa dfczLrku ekxZ ls tydy dEikm.M xsV rd b.VjykWfdax o vkj0lh0lh0 doMZ ukys ds uhps 1%3%6 ds vuqikr esa LVksu cSykLV ds LFkku ij yky fxV~Vh dk iz;ksx fd;k tkukA mRrj%& bl lEca/k esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e 1916 dh /kkjk&212&d ds vuqlkj uxjikfydk lhek ls 5 ehy nwjh rd Hkou ekxZ ;k ukyh ds fuekZ.k dks fu;af=r ,oa fofu;fer djus dh 'kfDr ikfydk esa fufgr gSA mDr LFky ij ty fudklh o tyHkjko dks fu;af=r djus gsrq mijksDr fuekZ.k dk;Z tufgr esa djk;s x;sA blds iwoZ Hkh bl jktLo xzke esa xsV QkSOokjk o ;k=h izfr{kky; dk fuekZ.k iwoZ v/;{k }kjk djk;k x;kA uxj ikfydk lhek ls ckgj dk;Z djk;s tkus dk vkjksi U;k;fgr esa mfpr ugha gSA mijksDr dk;ksZa ds vkax.ku fu;ekuqlkj cuk;s x;s gSA iz'uxr dk;ksZa ds vkx.ku izkfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i cuk;s x;s gSA iDds rkykc ds pkjksa vksj b.Vjykfdax o rkykc ds vUnj yxk;k x;k dksVk LVksu ekud ds vuq:i ik;h x;hA esjs rFkk vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds le; le; ij LFky ij tkdj Bsdsnkjksa dks ekud ds vuq:i xq.koRrkijd dk;Z djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA vr% ;g vkjksi yxk;k tkuk iw.kZr;% vlR; o vuqfpr gSA tkap vk[;k& LFkyh; fujh{k.k esa dqN LFkkuksa ij baVjykfdax VkbYl ds uhps fxV~Vh dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] ftlesa ik;k x;k fd baVjykWfdax ds uhps iz;ksx dh xbZ 1%6%12 dh fczd cSykLV v/kksekud gSa LFky ij csl dUdzhV dh vkSlr eksVkbZ 60 ,e0,e0 ik;h x;hA bl izdkj uxj ikfydk }kjk Bsdsnkjksa dks dqy :0&290063-00 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] tks fd ,d xEHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrk gSA jkT; foRr vk;ksx fuf/k dh :0&343000-00 dh /kujkf'k ds vUrxZr djk;k x;k gSA LFkyh; fujh{k.k esa ns[kk x;k gS fd baVjykWfdax ds uhps csl dUdzhV ds :i esa 1%3%6 LVksu cSykLV ih0lh0lh0 lhesUV dUdzhV dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gS] tks dh vkbZ0vkj0lh0 xkbZMykbu ds vuq:i ugha gSA baVjykfdax VkbYl ds uhps fxV~Vh dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] ftlesa ekSds ij ik;k x;k fd baVjykfdax ds uhps iz;ksx dh xbZ 1%3%6 dh LVksu cSykLV v/kksekud gSaA LFky ij csl dUdzhV dh vkSlr eksVkbZ 80 ,e0,e0 ik;h x;h] tcfd miyC/k djkbZ x;h eki iqfLrdk layXud&7 vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj 100 ,e0,e0 eksVkbZ esa csl dUdzhV dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA miyC/k eki iqfLrdk vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk djus ij Bsdsnkj dks vfrfjDr Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA vkbZ0vkj0lh0 xkbZMykbu dk ikyu u dkj.k ftu LFkyksa ij LVksu cSykLV csl dUdzhV dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS ogkW ij izfr'kr baVjykWfdax VkbYl {kfrxzLr dszd gks x;s gS] ftlls uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dks ekxZ ls tydy dEikmUM ,oa cgyksyiqj esa ekLVj ;quql ds edku ls fclok jksM+ vuqekur% yxHkx 980-10$1744-38$1886- 12$4640-90 dqy 4640-90 {ks=Qy baVjykfdax dk dk;Z djk;k x;k layXud&8] ftlesa 20 izfr'kr {kfrxzLr baVjykWfdax VkbYl vkx.ku] Lohd`r njksa ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk djus ij :0 8]98]478-00 dh {kfr gksrh gSA mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd mijksDr nksuksa dk;ksZa esa uxj ikfydk dks :0&1207069-00 dh foRrh; gkfu vuqekfur gSA fu"d"kZ& vr% vkjksi la0&3 esa vkjksfir foRrh; gkfu Lo;a fl) gSA As evident in this charge, it is stated that upon spot inspection being done at certain places, brick ballast underneath interlocking tiles was found to be substandard and the average thickness of the base concrete was found to be of 60 mm. On this basis, it was concluded that the amount paid to the contractors was more than what was actually deserved and accordingly financial irregularity has been committed. The persons who had made the spot inspection were not examined nor were their reports subjected to scrutiny by the petitioner and proper opportunity of rebutting this evidence was accordingly not afforded to the petitioner. It was further narrated that at certain points, stone ballast base concrete not being up to the mark, the interlocking tiles had developed cracks at certain places. Accordingly, this charge was found to be proved against the petitioner. This finding, therefore, cannot be treated to have been arrived at after affording due opportunity of hearing and rebuttal to the petitioner. 43. Charge no.4; the explanation of the petitioner; and the discussion and conclusion of the inquiry officer is reproduced verbatim as under: vkjksi la0&4 uxj ikfydk ifj"kn }kjk ,d gh ekxZ ds uke cny&cny dj rhu fufonk;sa fd;k tkukA mRrj& dk;ksZa ds ukedj.k dks ns[kus ls Li"V gS fd ,d dk;Z dk uke cny dj 3 fufonka, ugha dh x;hA cfYd mDr rhuksa dk;ksZa dh yEckbZ 1350 eh0 gS] tks vyx&vyx eki iqfLrdk esa dh x;h gSA mijksDr dk;ksZa esa 20 izfr'kr b.Vjykfdax VwVh gksus dk vkjksi iw.kZr;% xyr gS] dk;Z esa dqN LFkkuksa ij nks&pkj b.Vjykfdax VwVh ik;h x;h Fkh] ftls cnyus gsrq lEcafU/kr dks bl dk;kZy; ds i= la0&64 fnukad 02-02- 2015 rFkk 20-04-2015 ds }kjk uksfVl tkjh dj b.Vjykfdax cnyus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s gSA ;fn le; jgrs Bsdsnkj }kjk mDr dk;Z Bhd ugh tkrk gS rks mldh tek tekur jkf'k ls dk;Z dks Bhd djkdj mlds fo:) fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh tk;sxhA eki iqfLrdk o Hkqxrku fd;s x;s fcy dh izfr layXu gSA yxk;k x;k vkjksi fujk/kkj vlR; rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA fu"d"kZ& fcUnq la[;k&4 ds vUrxZr nh x;h vk[;k Hkzked gS tcfd tkWap vk[;k esa mDr ds lEcU/k dksbZ fVIi.kh ugha dh x;h gSA Upon perusal, it can be seen that the explanation of the petitioner submitted in respect of this charge has been rejected without assigning any reason at all by the inquiry officer. 44. 44. Charge no.5; the explanation of the petitioner and the report thereon of the inquiry officer is reproduced as under: vkjksi la0&5 bZnxkg ds vUnj yxk iRFkj ?kfV;k fdLe dk ik;k tkukA mRrj& iz'uxr fcUnq vlR; rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA uxj ikfydk ds dk;Z ikfydk ds jftLVMZ Bsdsnkjksa }kjk gh djk;s tkrs gSA ikfydk ds jftLVMZ Bsdsnkjksa o okMZ lnL;ksa dh lwph layXu gSA fu"d"kZ& tkWp vk[;k esa dksbZ fVIi.kh ugha dh x;h gSA Without assigning any reason, the inquiry officer has stated that comments have been submitted in respect of this charge. 45. 45. Charge no.6 and 8 have been omitted from the report of the inquiry officer and accordingly, the charge no.7; the explanation of the petitioner; the analysis and conclusion of the inquiry officer is reproduced as under: vkjksi la0&7 uxj ds iDds rky ij yxk iRFkj ?kfV;k fdLe dk gksuk rFkk b.Vjykfdax ds uhps lw[kh ckyw o fxV~Vh dk iz;ksx fd;k tkukA mRrj& iz'uxr fcUnq ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd iz'uxr dk;Z ds vkx.ku izkfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i cuk;s x;s gSA vkax.kuksa dk rduhfd ijh{k.k vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izk0[k0yks0fu0fo0 lhrkiqj }kjk fd;k x;k gSA iz'uxr dk;Z dk Hkqxrku fcy voj vfHk;Urk lgk;d vfHk;Urk izk0[k0yks0fu0fo0 lhrkiqj miftykf/kdkjh ygjiqj o vij ftykf/kdkjh egksn; lhrkiqj }kjk dk;Z lUrks"ktud gksus ds mijkUr gh Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA yxk;k x;k vkjksi rF;ksa ls ijs gSA vk[;k& LFky fujh{k.k esa ns[kk x;k fd LFky ij dksVk LVksu ij dqN LFkkuksa ij ihys nkx vk;s gS] tks lEHkor~ rkykc esa ,df=r ikuh esa ekStwn yo.k lkYV ds dkj.k izrhr gksrs gSA iDds rkykc ds fudV fd;s x;s bUVjykWfdax dk;Z esa Mkyh x;h csl dUdzhV esa izFke n`"V;k v/kksekud ikbZ x;hA LFkyh; ijh{k.k esa csl dUdzhV dh vkSlr eksVkbZ 80 ,e0,e0 ik;h x;h] tcfd miyC/k djkbZ x;h eki iqfLrdk vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj 100 ,e0,e0 eksVkbZ esa csl dUdzhV 1%6%12 fczd cSykLV dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA miyC/k eki iqfLrdk layXud&9 vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij x.kuk djus ij Bsdsnkj dks dqy :0&126439-75 dk vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] tks fd ,d xEHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrk gSA fu"d"kZ& mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd dk;Z Bhd fu;ekuqlkj ugha djk;k x;k Fkk foRrh; gkfu igqapk;k tkuk fl) gSA The inquiry officer while analysing the evidence in support of this charge has stated that according to the measurement register, the base concrete underlying the interlocking tiles should have been of 100 mm while upon spot inspection, it was found to be only of 80 mm. Who made this spot inspection is not stated in the report nor any such person has been examined and any opportunity of cross examination has also not been afforded to the petitioner to rebut the claim of the inspecting official that base concrete was not found as per the prescribed standard. 46. Who made this spot inspection is not stated in the report nor any such person has been examined and any opportunity of cross examination has also not been afforded to the petitioner to rebut the claim of the inspecting official that base concrete was not found as per the prescribed standard. 46. The charge no.9; the explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the analysis of the inquiry officer in respect thereto are as under: vkjksi la0&9 eksgYyk fpDdh Vksyk esa ubZ efLtn ds lkeus vktc ckx ds ikl lM+d ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k esa ?kfV;k fdLe ds b.Vjykfdax dk iz;ksx fd;k tkukA mRrj& fpDdh Vksyk esa ubZ efLtn vtk;c ckx ds ikl fufeZr b.Vjykfdax lM+d fuekZ.k ehV ekdsZV esa fuekZ.k lkexzh dh vkiwfrZ gsrq Hkkjh okguksa ds pyrs lM+d dqN LFkku ij /kal x;h Fkh] ftls Bsdsnkj }kjk Bhd djk fn;k x;k gSA tkap vk[;k& LFky ij ik;k x;k fd baVjykWfdax VkbYl dbZ LFkkuksa ij {kfrxzLr gks xbZ rFkk VkbYl ds uhps csl dUdzhV dh eksVkbZ izFke n`"V;k vkSlr 5 lseh ikbZ x;h] tcfd eki iqfLrdk layXud&10 vfHkys[k ls Li"V gS fd Bsdsnkj dks 10 lseh eksVkbZ esa csl dUdzhV 1%6%12 fczd cSykLV ik;h x;hA ftlds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj dks :0&78955-94 vfrfjDr Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA fu"d"kZ& mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd dk;Z Bhd fu;ekuqlkj ugha djk;k x;k Fkk foRrh; gkfu igqapk;k tkuk fl) gSA 47. In respect of this charge also, the inquiry officer goes to state that the thickness of the base concrete not being up to the required standard, interlocking tiles were found to have been broken at certain places, by the persons making the spot inspection. No such person has been examined in support of this charge nor has any opportunity of his cross examination been afforded to the petitioner. 48. After this inquiry report was received, the State Government allowed an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and after hearing the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 49. The disciplinary authority is required not only to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent but also apply its mind on the inquiry report as also the explanation submitted by the delinquent. 49. The disciplinary authority is required not only to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent but also apply its mind on the inquiry report as also the explanation submitted by the delinquent. If the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is examined in respect of each charge, it would be noticed that the charge, explanation of the petitioner in this regard, and the report of the inquiry officer has been quoted verbatim and the conclusion of the inquiry officer only says that the discussion of the inquiry officer is proper and the provision of the Act allegedly violated by the petitioner, is quoted. 50. What is the basis for finding the report of the inquiry officer as proper, has not been expressed at all by the disciplinary authority in Annexure 1. Thereafter, the inquiry officer finding all the charges as proved, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that there has been proper application of mind by the disciplinary authority before passing of the impugned order. 51. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner could not be said to have been given a due opportunity to rebut the charges levelled against him. Further, in spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the findings were recorded without taking due evidence in this regard by the inquiry officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, as shown by annexure 1, has not duly applied its mind before awarding the punishment of removal from office to the petitioner, who was holding an elected office in a local self government. 52. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in our considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be termed as being in accordance with law. Therefore, the same deserves be set aside. 53. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure 1) removing the petitioner from the office of the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laharpur, District Sitapur is hereby set aside. 54. In the light of the aforesaid, the consequential action shall be taken without any undue delay by the respondents so as to give effect to this order. 55. No order as to costs.