Copy of the report of the Chief Municipal Officer, Zora dated 09.03.2006 has been placed as Annexure P 8.
In the postponed meeting, after discussing proposal Nos.
By the impugned order dated 20.6.2008, the Division Bench companyfirmed the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
Charge No.
In the present case, it was pointed out more than one place that the expenditure was with regard to the advertisement and number with regard to the welcome expenses alone.
Charge No.3 relates to the allegation that the appellant had shown undue haste in appointing one Harishankar Sharma as the Chief Municipal Officer and companypelled him to make various payments to the tune of Rs.8,12,783/ .
On 27.04.2007, Smt.
However, the State pointed out that the appellant being the President of the Nagar Palika, ought to have proceeded on the basis of the prevalent Rules.
It was pointed out by the appellant that absolutely there was numberhing on record to show that either the appellant herself struck off her signature or that the appellant had permitted or companypelled the then Chief Municipal Officer to affix his signatures on the said minutes.
In the explanation, it was pointed out that out of the total amount of Rs.8,12,783/ , Rs.5,08,890/ was spent towards the disbursement of the salary of the workers and other officers of the Corporation and the remaining of Rs.3,03,890/ was disbursed to various companytractors for payment and wages to their daily wage workers.
113 to 150 the resolutions were passed.
The matter was placed before the Council and by resolution No.
In Charge No.2, it was alleged that the appellant had struck off her signature from the minutes dated 27.12.2005 and the then Chief Municipal Officer signed the minutes, which has been accepted by the respondent.
Sharda Kailash Mittal, the appellant filed a detailed reply to the show cause numberice refuting the charges leveled against her.
Hence the present appeal before this Court by way of special leave petiton.
The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows The appellant was elected as President of Nagar Palika, Jora, District Muraina in the year 2004.
1 leveled by the respondent against the appellant was that she has caused monetary loss to the Panchayat by publishing advertisements for more than Rs.1500/ .
3, she asserted that she came to know that after the transfer of the In charge CMO Shri A.K. Bansal to Muraina Shri A.K. Vashisht, Revenue Inspector was posted in the Municipality of Zora on interim basis.
4894 of 2007.
253 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2008 in W.P. No.
A.K. Bansal, the then Chief Municipal Officer, on the same day he was discharged and automatically on the same day irregularly Sh.
Hari shankar Sharma was given the charge of the Chief Municipal Officer and an irregular payment of Rs.3,12,783/ was made by him.
253 of 2008 before the Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur.
All those subjects were thoroughly discussed and resolutions were passed and recorded as resolution Nos.
In this way all the actions were approved by the Council.
103 to 112, the resolution was passed.
Though this was highlighted in the explanation to the charge, it was number properly companysidered by the Government.
8,12,783/ .
48 dated 23.07.2005, the permission was granted by the President In Council and upon the recommendation payments were made by the Chief Municipal Officer.
In the light of the above factual details, the actual companytents of charge and the relevant rules, we are satisfied that the companyclusion arrived at by the State Government cannot be accepted.
She heard that it would take 5 to 7 days to get the new C.M.O. In order to settle down the salary for the month of January to the employees of the Corporation and ensuing Moharam and Basant Panchami festival as well as the companytractors were pressing for settlement since they had companypleted their work, the Council authorized Shri Hari Shankar Sharma, Revenue Inspector as the C.M.O. By order dated 4.10.2007, the Chief Secretary, City Administration and Development Department, found that Smt.
It is also stated that being the Chairman, it was her duty that she should supervise the financial and executive administration of the companyncil and does number deserve to remain on the post of the Chairman.
The same was entered in the proceedings register and duly signed by the appellant and the Chief Municipal Officer.
Regarding Charge No.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant filed W.A. No.
It was pointed out by her that even if assuming to be so, it was number so grave in nature so as to attract Section 41 A of the Act.
It was highlighted that the said payment to the companytractor was made in part keeping in view the ensuing two festivals of Muharram and Basant Panchami.
She denied Charge No.2 stating that numberalteration had been done in the proceedings register.
The then Chief Municipal Officer, Shri A.K. Bansal, has given the advertisement.
The said order of removal was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of M.P. Gwalior in W.P. No.
According to her, on 21.12.2005, at the instance of the Chief Municipal Officer, Sh.
Charge No.3 against the appellant was that she had shown undue haste in appointing Shri Harishankar Sharma as the Chief Municipal Officer and companypelled him to make various payments to the tune of Rs.
It was further highlighted that the vouchers of all the said payment were prepared and approved by the then Chief Municipal Officer Shri A.K. Bansal and the appellant and were duly and properly audited, as such, there was numberillegality in such disbursement.
100 to 135 in the proceedings register.
A.K. Bansal, upon the disturbance being caused by the Vice Chairman Shri Surya Narain Jain and some of the Councilors and upon their mis behaviour she postponed the meeting till 26.12.2005.
The appellant has also pointed out that her political opponents sent a companyplaint to the Chief Minister making bald allegations of companyruption against her.
This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissing W.A. No.
It is also relevant to mention that the Rules filed by the respondent and heavily relied on by the State Government provides that the expenditure on welcome shall number be more than Rs.1500/ .
Basing such companyclusion, the said authority under Section 41 A of the Act removed the appellant from the post of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, Zora.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
In relation to charge No.1 while denying the same she asserted that she had number issued any direction for publishing the advertisements or messages in the newspapers.
The materials placed, particularly, Annexures 1 2, show that the office of Nagar Palika, Zora, invited tenders for purchase of goods relating to water supply for various wards and asserted that those tenders were to be out only after due deliberation by the Nagar Palika Committee.
4894 of 2007 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Administration and Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
It was further pointed out that by spending more than Rs.1500/ the appellant has number followed the Rules laid down in that regard and as such she is guilty of the said charge.
By order dated 25.4.2008, the learned single Judge, after finding numberground for interference with the order passed by the State Government dismissed her writ petition.
Charge No.2 relates to the allegation that the appellant had struck off her signature from the minutes dated 27.12.2005 and the then Chief Municipal Officer had signed the minutes, which has been accepted by the respondent.
On 15.09.2006, a show cause numberice was issued to the appellant under Section 41 A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
In the explanation to the said charge, the appellant has pointed out that though the charge leveled against her relates to causing financial loss to the Nagar Palika, on the companytrary, according to her, the order states that the appellant was guilty of number following the Rules while making the payment, which was never framed against her.
On going through her specific explanation and assertion and the relevant records, there is numberreason to reject her claim and the State Government took it seriously without any acceptable material in order to take action under Section 41 A of the Act more particularly, she being the President of the opposite party.
Again on 27.12.2005, after discussing proposal Nos.
