S.48 UP Municipality Act | Allahabad High Court Explains Procedure To Be Adopted For Removal Of 'Nagarpalika' President

The Court ruled that such removal cannot be affected merely based on a preliminary inquiry and a show-cause notice and rather, a “full-fledged inquiry” involving the framing of charges and cross-examination of witnesses is mandatory.

A bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla culled out the following principles that the State must follow under Section 48(2-A) before removing a President:

A. When the Government initiates proceedings against an elected representaive, an Inquiry Officer is required to be appointed, who is required to frame a charge-sheet based on the preliminary report mentioning all the charges along with evidence relied upon for framing charges and shall deliver a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained.

B. On receipt of articles of charge, the delinquent shall be afforded with an opportunity to submit his written statement to specifically deny the charges by pleading not guilty. It is incumbent upon the respondents to provide all the documentary evidence relied by the prosecution.

C. The Inquiry Officers shall fix a date for the appearance of the delinquent to answer the charges and defend his case.

D. The Evidence tendered by witnesses must be recorded in the presence of the delinquent and he shall be afforded an opportunity of examination and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Opportunity should also be provided to lead evidence in defence including examination of defence witnesses.

E. Before closing the case on behalf the Inquiry Officer, the delinquent may be allowed to produce new evidence or he may himself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness.

F. Upon completion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared by the Inquiry Officer to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the elected representative is found to be involved in any financial irregularity for the charges levelled against him. The said report must be mandatorily furnished to delinquent and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Government to impose penalty.

In its order, the bench quashed and set aside the order of the State Government removing Irfan Ahmad from the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhinga, District Shravasti.

Justice Saraf, writing for the Bench, observed that an elected representative is the “embodiment of the democratic will of the people” and occupies a “higher constitutional pedestal” than a government servant.

“Even if a government servant cannot be removed on the allegations of misconduct perfunctorily without holding a full-fledged inquiry, it is inconceivable that an elected officebearer may be removed without adherence to an equally rigorous procedure,” the Court noted.

Facts in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner (Irfan Ahmad) was elected as President in the 2023 Local Bodies Election. Subsequently, three complaints were lodged against him alleging corruption and financial misuse of power. A complaint was made specifically regarding the award of tenders to close associates and the purchase of bricks from a kiln owned by his father.

Based on reports from two-member and three-member inquiry committees, the State Government issued a show-cause notice to him. While Ahmad submitted a reply denying the allegations, he was removed from office vide an order dated October 29, 2025.

Challenging the State's action, Ahmad argued that the inquiry was in gross dereliction of Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916, as it violated the principles of natural justice.

The State contended that the issuance of a show-cause notice and consideration of the reply had satisfied the requirement of the statute.

However, the Bench rejected the State's contention as it noted that the phrase “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” under Section 48(2-A) contemplates a rigorous process when the removal of an elected official is at issue.

The Court found that the impugned order was passed solely on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report and the petitioner's explanation.

It remarked that in the present case, no Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a final inquiry and no charge-sheet was framed.

It further noted that in fact, no opportunity was afforded for examination, cross-examination, or re-examination of witnesses and no procedure for leading evidence was followed.

It also relied on the Allahabad HC's decision in the case of Mehrunnissa v. State of U.P. (2023) and the Supreme Court's decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector (2012) wherein it was held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry if the delinquent is not associated with it.

The bench noted that not all crossroads for conducting a full-fledged inquiry were followed in this case.

Consequently, the bench opined that the inquiry conducted by the respondents cannot be termed a full-fledged inquiry prior to passing the order of removal against the petitioner and is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated October 29, 2025, was quashed and set aside, with a direction to the competent authority to conduct a full-fledged inquiry by recording all evidence and granting due opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and thereafter to proceed in accordance with the law.