SHARDA KAILASH MITIALversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

                    [201 OJ 1 S.C.R. 451


                SHARDA KAILASH MITIAL                          A
                             v.
                 STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2010)

                    JANUARY 12, 2010
                                                               8
 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - s. 41-A -
Power of State Government to remove the President, Vice-
President or a Chairman of any Committee - Application of C
s. 41-A - Scope of - Held: Such person can be removed, if
his continuance in the office is not found desirable in public
interest or in the interest of Council or if he is incapable of
performing his duties; or is working against the provisions of
the Act/Rules - Resort to s. 41:A can be had only after such   o
person is duly elected - Removal of such officer must be
resorted to only in grave and exceptional circumstances and
not for minor irregularities in discharge of duties - On facts,
order of removal of the President of Nagar Palika by State
Government as upheld by High Court not justified and is set E
aside - Actions of the President, even if proved, only amount
to irregularities, and not grave forms of illegalities, which may
allow State Government to invoke its extreme power uls. 41-
A - Municipalities.

     Appellant was elected as the President of the Nagar       F
Palika. She was issued show cause notice and certain
charges were leveled against her. It was alleged that the
appellant had caused monetary loss to the Panchayat by
publishing advertisements; that she had struck off her
signature from the minutes; and that she had shown             G
undue haste in appointing HS as the Chief Municipal
Officer. Appellant denied the charges. The Chief Secretary
also found that she had violated the provisions of s. 51
of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
                            451                                H
                            " '
    452      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A Thereafter, the State Government invoked Section 41-A
  of the Act and removed the appellant from the post of the
  President of the Nagar Palika. High Court upheld the
  removal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
       HELD: 1. The actions of the President-appellant, even
  if proved, only amount to irregularities, and not grave
  forms of illegalities, which may allow the State
  Government to invoke its extreme power u/s. 41-A of the
C Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Thus, the order
  of the State Government removing the appellant as
  President of the Nagar Palika, u/s. 41-A of the Act and
  consequential orders passed by the Single Judge and
  Division Bench of High Court is set aside. In view of the
D fact that her tenure has come to an end and fresh election
  was also conducted, the sub~equent events are not
  disturbed. However, it is made clear that in view of the
  present order, the disqualification of the appellant is
  expunged and the appellant would be free to contest the
E elections in future. [Paras 19 and 21) [464-G-H; 466-B-D]

       2.1. Section 41-A of the Act vests the State
  Government with power to remove the President, Vice-
  Pres ident or a Chairman of any Committee, if his
  continuance in the office is not found desirable in public
F interest or in the interest of the Council or if it is found
  that he is incapable of performing his duties; or is
  working against the provisions of the Act or rules made
  thereunder. A conjoint reading of ss. 20, 22 and 41-A as
  also the Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India would
G make it amply clear that resort to s. 41-A can be had to
  remove a person from the office only after he/she is duly
  elected and his/her conduct in office is otherwise found
  prejudicial to public interest or in the interest of the
  Council. In addition, u/s. 41-A (2), the State Government
H
  SHARDA KAILASH MITTAL v. STATE OF M.P. &             453
                  ORS.
at the time of removal from office may also pass an order      A
disqualifying the person from holding the office of
President, Vice-President or Chairman for the next term.
[Paras 9 and 16] [459-D-E; 463-C]

     2.2. The President under the Act is a democratically      8
elected officer, and the removal of such an officer is an
extreme step which must be resorted to only in grave and
exceptional circumstances. For taking action u/s. 41-A for
removal of President, Vice-President or Chairman of any
Committee, power is conferred on the State Government          C
with no provision of any appeal. The action of removal
casts a serious stigma on the personal and public life of
the concerned office bearer and may result in his/her
disqualificatio.n to hold such office for the next term.
Therefore, the exercise of power has serious civil
consequences on the status of an office bearer. There          D
are no sufficient guidelines in the provisions of s. 41-A
as to the manner in which the power has to be exercised,
except that it requires that reasonable opportunity of
hearing has to be afforded to the office bearer proceeded
against. Keeping in view the nature of the power and the       E
consequences' that flows on its exercise, such power can
be invoked by the State Government 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 the elected post. The provision has to be            F
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 the electorate has no
chance of participation. [Paras 17 and 18] (464-B-G]
                                                               G
    Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors. (200~)
6 sec 260, referred to.

   3.1. The analysis of the materials, particularly, the
background shows that the State Government failed to
                                                               H
    454     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A appreciate that the decisions for publication of
  advertisements, calling for tenders and payment of
  salaries were made by the entire council and the
  President-appellant could not be singled out for those
  decisions taken by the Council. High Court failed to
B appreciate that removal u/s. 41-A of the Act could be
  resorted to only under grave and exceptional
  circumstances which were not present in the appellant's
  case. No charge of causing financial loss to the Nagar
  Palika could be established by the State Government.
c [Para 15] [462-G-H; 463-A]
         3.2. It is clear that the advertisements, tenders calling
    for attending day-to-day work of the Municipality such as
    provision for drinking water, sanitation etc. were duly put
    out only after due deliberation by the Council of Nagar
D   Palika and no decision was taken by the appellant
    herself. All works had been completed after satisfying the
    conditions prescribed therein. The appellant has also
    established that due to transfer of Chief Municipal Officer,
    the salaries of workers of the Nagar Palika remained
E   upaid for the month of January, 2006 leading to
    possibility of unrest in the area, therefore, it was
    requested to the appellant by the Councilors that
    necessary arrangements be made for immediate payment
    of salaries in view of the ensuing festivals of Muharram
F   and Basant Panchami. The appellant pointed out that out
    of the amount of Rs.8,12,783/-, an amount of Rs.5,08,890/
    - was disbursed towards salaries of the workers and
    other officers of the Nagar Palika and the remaining Rs.
    3,03,890/- was paid to various contractors for payment of
G   salaries to their daily wage workers. The vouchers of all
    the. said payments were prepared and approved by the
    then Chief Municipal Officer and the appellant, and those
    accounts were duly audited and as such there is no valid
    reason to reject the stand taken by the appellant. Though
H
   SHARDA KAILASH MITIAL v. STATE OF M.P. &           455
                   ORS.
the State Government erroneously mentioned the A
expenses on advertisement as Rs.2.46 lacs subsequently
they themselves filed an application for amendment to
correct the amount of Rs.2.46 lacs to be read as
Rs.24,600/-. The Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of High Court not only failed to consider all the B
above circumstances and the exigencies under which the
appellant was compelled to make the appointment of HS
as Chief Municipal Officer and also ignored the fact that
the appointment was actually made for payment of
salaries and to make the payments to the contractors c
who pressed for disbursement of the same to their
workers. In the light of the above conclusion and in the
absence of a findirg that any loss was caused, the
decision of the Sta~ Government can not be sustained.
[Para 20] [465-A-H; 466-A]                                D

                    Case Law Reference:
    (2001) s sec 250        Referred to.         Para 17
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 222      E
of 2010.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 20.6.2008 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in W.A. No. 253
of 2008.
                                                             F
    Ravindra Kr. Srivastava, S.K. Dubey, Suryanarayana
Singh, Pragati Neekhra, Anup Jain and Chhavi Batra for the
Appellant.

     T.S. Doabia, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Eshita
Barua, B.S. Banthia, Naveen Sharma and Samar Vijay Singh     G
(for Jagjit Singh Chhabra) for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                             H
    456      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A      2. 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. 253 of 2008 filed by the appellant
  herein against the order of the learned single Judge dated
  25.04.2008 in W.P. No. 4894 of 2007 whereby the learned
B 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.

C         3. 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. On 15.09.2006, a show
  cause notice was issued to the appellant under Section 41-A
D of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter
  referred to as the "Act"). Charge No. 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/-. In Charge No.2, it was alleged that
E 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.
  Charge No.3 against the appellant was that she had shown
  undue haste in appointing Shri Harishankar Sharma as the
F Chief Municipal Officer and compelled him to make various ·
  payments to the tune of Rs. 8, 12,783/-.

       4. On 27.04.2007, Smt. Sharda Kailash Mittal, the
  appellant filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice refuting
  the charges leveled against her. In relation to charge No.1 while
G denying the same she asserted that she had not issued any
  direction for publishing the advertisements or messages in the
  newspapers. The then Chief Municipal Officer, Shri A.K. Bansal,
  has given the advertisement. The matter was placed before the
  Council and by resolution No. 48 dated 23.07.2005, the
H
    SHARDA KAILASH MITTAL v. STATE OF M.P. &                 457
            ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 permission was granted by the President-In-Council and upon         A
 the recommendation payments were made by the Chief
 Municipal Officer. She denied Charge No.2 stating that no
 alteration had been done in the proceedings register. According
 to her, on 21.12.2005, at the instance of the Chief Municipal
 Officer, Sh. A.K. Bansal, upon the disturbance being caused         B
 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. In the postponed meeting, after
 discussing proposal Nos. 103 to 112, the resolution was
 passed. The same was entered in the proceedings register and        c
duly signed by the appellant and the Chief Municipal Officer.
Again on 27.12.2005, after discussing proposal Nos. 113 to
 150 the resolutions were passed. All those subjects were
thoroughly discussed and resolutions were passed and
 recorded as resolution Nos. 100 to 135 in the proceedings           D
register. In this way all the actions were approved by the
Council. Regarding Charge No. 3, she asserted that she came
to know that after the transfer of the In-charge CMO Shri AK.
Bansal to Muraina Shri A.K. Vashisht, Revenue Inspector was
posted in the Municipality of Zora on interim basis. She heard       E
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 contractors were
pressing for settlement since they had completed their work,
the Council authorized Shri Hari Shankar Sharma, Revenue             F
Inspector as the C.M.O.

     5. By order dated 4.10.2007, the Chief Secretary, City
Administration and Development Department, found that Smt.
Mittal has violated the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. It is   G
also stated that being the Chairman, it was her duty that she
should supervise the financial and executive administration of
the council and does not deserve to remain on the post of the
Chairman. Basing such conclusion, the said authority under
Section 41-A of the Act removed the appellant from the post          H
    458      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [201 OJ 1 S.C.R.


A of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, Zora.

      6. The said order of removal was challenged by the
  appellant before the High Court of M.P. Gwalior in W.P. No.
  4894 of 2007. By order dated 25.4.2008, the learned single
B Judge, after finding no ground for interference with the order
  passed by the State Government dismissed her writ petition.

       7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the
  appellant filed W.A. No. 253 of 2008 before the Division Bench
  of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. By the impugned order
C dated 20.6.2008, the Division Bench confirmed the order of the
  learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Hence
  the present appeal before this Court by way of special leave
  petiton.

         8. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Kr. Srivastava, learned
0
    senior counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sushil Kr.
    Jain, learned counsel, for respondent No.3 and Mr. S.S.
    Banthia, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2.

       9. It is not in dispute that election for Nagar Palika, Zora
E was held and the appellant was elected as President of the
  Nagar Palika which is a reserved seat for woman under
  Section 29-8 of the Act. Before considering the specific
  charges leveled against the appellant, it is useful to refer
  Section 41-A of the Act which refers the removal of President
F or Vice-President or Chairman of a Committee:-

                   "41-A. Removal of President or Vice-President or
          Chairman of a Committee - (1) The State Government
          may, at any time, remove a President or Vice-President
          or a Chairman of any Committee, if his continuance as
G         such is not in the opinion of the State Government
          desirable in public interest or in the interest of the Council
          or if it is found that he is incapable of performing his duties
          or is working against the provisions of the Act or any rules
          made thereunder or if it is found that he does not belong
H         to the reserved category for which the seat was reserved.
   SHARDA KAILASH MITIAL v. STATE OF M.P. &                 459
           ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
           (2) As a result of the order of removal of Vice-         A
     President or Chairman of any Committee, as the case may
     be, under sub-section (1) it shall be deemed that such
     Vice-President or a Chairman of any Committee, as the
     case may be, has been removed from the office of the
     Councilor also. At the time of passing order under sub-        B
     section (1), the State Government may also pass such
     order that the President or Vice-President or Chairman of
     any Committee, as the case may be, shall be disqualified
     to hold the office of President or Vice-President or
     Chairman, as the case may be, for the next term:               c
            Provided that no such order under this section shall
     be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard
     is given."

The above Section 41-A vests the State Government with              D
power to remove the President, Vice-President or a Chairman
of any Committee, if his continuance in the office is not found
desirable in public interest or in the interest of the Council. A
conjoint reading of other provisions such as Sections 20, 22
and 41-A as also the Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India    E
would make it amply clear that resort to Section 41-A can be
had to remove a person from the office only after he/she is duly
elected and his/her conduct in office is otherwise found
prejudicial to public interest or in the interest of the Council.

     10. Let us consider the charges leveled against the
                                                                    F
appellant, procedure followed in her case and the ultimate
decision by the State Government under Section 41-A of the
Act. Though four charges have been pressed into service in the
show cause notice dated 15.09.2006, admittedly Charge No.4
has not been established, hence we are concerned with Charge        G
Nos. 1-3 only. They are as follows:

    "Charge No. 1

    That by getting published advertisements/best wishes            H
    460       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A         messages in various newspapers of more than Rs.1500/
          - each she has caused financial loss to the Municipality of
          Zora.

          Charge No.2
B         On 27 .12.2005, after the meeting of the council in the end
          of the details of the proceedings Smt. Sharda Kailash
          Mittal had put her signatures which have been cut and after
          the signatures so cut, Smt. Mittal has herself signed it
          again alongwith this on the sea of the Chief of the Chief
c         Municipal Officer are the signatures of Sh. Hari Shankar
          Sharma who is not authorized to carry on any duty by the
          administration or senior officer of the Chief Municipal
          Officer.

D         Charge No.3

          In sequence to the order dated 06.02.2006 for the transfer
          of Sh. AK. 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
E         the charge of the Chief Municipal Officer and an irregular
          payment of Rs.3,12,783/-was made by him."

       11. The substance of the Charge No.1 was that the
  appellant has caused monetary loss to the Municipality by
F publishing advertisements for more than Rs.1500/-. We have
  already pointed out and it was also not in dispute that the
  appellant-the President had submitted her detailed explanation
  with reference to the same. According to ner, the payment for
  such publications had been approved by the President-in-
G Council, and the request for making the payment was
  expressed by the Chief Municipal Officer. 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 further pointed out that by spending more than
H Rs.1500/- the appellant has not followed the Rules laid down
    SHARDA KAILASH MITTAL v. STATE OF M.P. &                 461
            ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

· in that regard and as such she is guilty of the said charge. In A
  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 contrary, according
  to her, the order states that the appellant was guilty of not
  following the Rules while making the payment, which was never B
  framed against her. 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
  not be more than Rs.1500/-. In the present case, it was pointed
  out more than one place that the expenditure was with regard       c
  to the advertisement and not with regard to the "welcome"
  expenses alone. Though this was highlighted in the explanation
  to the charge, it was not properly considered by the
  Government. The materials placed, particularly, Annexures 1 &
  2, show that the office of Nagar Palika, Zora, invited tenders 0
  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. In the light of the
  above factual details, the actual contents of charge and the
  relevant rules, we are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at E
  by the State Government cannot be accepted.

      12. 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. It was pointed out       F
 by the appellant that absolutely there was nothing on record to
 show that either the appellant herself struck off her signature
 or that the appellant had permitted or compelled the then Chief
 Municipal Officer to affix his signatures on the said minutes. It
 was pointed out by her that even if assuming to be so, it was       G
 not so grave in nature so as to attract Section 41-A of the Act.
 On going through her specific explanation and assertion and
 the relevant records, there is no reason to reject her claim and
 the State Government took it seriously without any acceptable
 material in order to ta"" 1ction under Section 41-A of the Act      H
    462      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A more particularly, she being the President of the opposite party.

          13. 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 compelled him to make
    various payments to the tune of Rs.8,12,783/-. In the
8
    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
C   disbursed to various contractors for payment and wages to their
    daily wage workers. It was highlighted that the said payment
    to the contractor was made in part keeping in view the ensuing
    two festivals of Muharram and Basant Panchami. It was further
    highlighted that the vouchers of all the said payment were
    prepared and approved by the then Chief Municipal Officer -
D   Shri A.K. Bansal and the appellant and were duly and properly
    audited, as such, there was no illegality in such disbursement.
    Copy of the report of the Chief Municipal Officer, Zora dated
    09.03.2006 has been placed as Annexure P-8. The appellant
    has also pointed out that her political opponents sent a
E   complaint to the Chief Minister making bald allegations of
    corruption against her. A copy of the letter dated 12.05.2006
    has been included as Annexure P-9.

       14. Apart from the above complaint, the appellant has also
F highlighted certain communications between the local leaders
  and the State Government seeking the Government's
  intervention in taking action against her for one reason or the
  other.

        15. The analysis of these materials, particularly, the
G background shows that the State Government failed to
  appreciate that the decisions for publication of advertisements,
  calling for tenders and payment of salaries were made by the
  entrre council and the President-appellant could not be singled
  out for those decisions taken by the Council. The High Court
H failed to appreciate that removal under Section 41-A of the Act
   SHARDA KAILASH MITTAL v. STATE OF M.P. &                  463
           ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
could be resorted td> only under grave and exceptional               A
circumstances which were not present in the appellant's case.
No charge of causing financial loss to the Nagar Palika could
be established by the State Government.

      16. As directed earlier, Section 41-A of the Act gives
                                                                     8
power to the State Government to remove the President, Vice
- President or Chairman of a Committee on four broad
grounds, namely, (a) Public interest; (b) Interest of the Council;
\c) Incapability of performing his duties; and (d) Working against
the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. In addition,     C
under Section 41 - A (2), the State Government at the time of
removal from office may also pass an order disqualifying the
person from holding the office of President, Vice - President
or Chairman for the next term. The question to be determined
is what is the scope of the application of Section 41-A and
what is the nature of power of the Government?                       D

     17. In Tarlochan Dev Shanna v. State of Punjab and Ors.
(2001) 6  sec   260, this Court while dealing with the removal
of a President of the Council under Punjab Municipal Act of
1911, held in Paragraph 6 as under:                                  E

    "In a democracy governed by rule of law, once elected to
    an office in a democratic institution, the incumbent is
    entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been
    elected unless his elections set aside by a prescribed
                                                                     F
    procedure known to law ... Removal from such an office is
    a serious matter. It curtails the statutory term of the holder
    of the office a stigma is cast on the holder of the office in
    view of certain allegations having been held proved
    rendering him unworthy of holding the office which he held."
                                                                     G
     In Paragraph 11 this Court observed as under:

    "A singular or causal aberration or failure in exercise of
    power is not enough ; a course of conduct or plurality of
    aberration or failure in exercise of power and that too          H
    464       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010) 1 S.C.R.


A         involving, dishonesty of intention is ... The legislature could
          not have intended the occupant of an elective office, seated
          by popular verdict, to be shown exit for a single innocuous
          action or error of decision."

    The same consideration must be taken into account while
8
    interpreting Section 41- A of the Act. The President under the
    M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 is a democratically elected
    officer, and the removal of such an officer is an extreme step
    which must be resorted to only in grave and exceptional
    circumstances.
c
          18. For taking action under Section 41-A for removal of
     President, Vice-President or Chairman of any Committee,
    power is conferred on the State Government with no provision
    of any appeal. The action of removal casts a serious stigma
D   on the personal and public life of the concerned office bearer
    and may result in his/her disqualification to hold such office for
    the next term. The exercise of power, therefore, has serious civil
    consequences on the status of an office bearer. There are no
    sufficient guidelines in the provisions of Section 41-A as to the
E   manner in which the power has to be exercised, except that it
    requires that reasonable opportunity of hearing has to· be
    afforded to the office bearer proceeded against. Keeping in
    view the nature of the power and the consequences that flows
    on its exercise it has to be held that such power can be invoked
F   by the State Government 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 the elected
    post. The provision has to be construed in strict manner
    because the holder of office occupies it by election and he/she
G   is deprived of the office by an executive order in which the
    electorate has no chance of participation.

        19. In the present case, the actions of the appellant, even
  if proved, only amount to irregularities, and not grave forms of
  illegalities, which may allow the State Government to invoke its
H extreme power under Section 41 - A.
   SHARDA KAILASH MITTAL v. STATE OF M.P. &                  465
           ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
       20. From the materials placed before us, we are satisfied     A
 that the advertisements, tenders calling for attending day-to-day
 work of the Municipality such as provision for drinking water,
 sanitation etc. were duly put out only after due deliberation by
 the Council of Nagar Palika and no decision was taken by the
 appellant herself. The appellant has also established that due      B
 to transfer of Chief Municipal Officer, the salaries of workers
 of the Nagar Palika remained upaid for the month of January,
 2006 leading to possibility of unrest in the area, therefore, it
 was requested to the appellant by the Councilors that necessary
 arrangements be made for immediate payment of salaries in           c
 view of the ensuing festivals of Muharram and Basant
 Panchami. The materials placed by the appellant before the
 State Government as well as before the High Court show that
the tender had been put out after due deliberation by the Council
and all works had been completed after satisfying the                D
conditions prescribed therein. The appellant had pointed out
that out of the amount of Rs.8,12,783/-, an amount of
Rs.5,08,890/- was disbursed towards salaries of the workers
and other officers of the Nagar'Palika and the remaining Rs.
3,03,890/- was paid to various contractors for payment of            E
salaries to their daily wage workers. The vouchers of all the said
payments were prepared and approved by the then Chief
Municipal Officer-Shri A.K. Bansal and the appellant and those
accounts were duly audited and as such there is no valid reason
to reject the stand taken by the appellant. I! is also relevant to
point out that though the State Government erroneously               F
mentioned the expenses on advertisement as Rs.2.46 lacs
subsequently they themselves filed an application for
amendment to correct the amount of Rs.2.46 lacs to be read
as Rs.24,600/-. The learned single Judge as well as the
Division Bench not only failed to consider all the above             G
circumstances and the exigencies under which the appellant
was compelled to make the appointment of one Shri
Harishankar Sharma as Chief Municipal Officer and also
ignored the fact that the appointment was actually made for
payment of salaries and to make the payments to the                  H
    466     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 1 S.C.R.


A   contractors who pressed for disbursement of the same to their
    workers. In the light of the above conclusion and in the absence
    of a finding that any loss was caused, the decision of the State
    Government can not be sustained.

       21. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the
8
  order of the State Government removing the appellant as
  President of the Nagar Palika, Zora, District Muraina under
  Section 41-A of the Act and consequential orders dated
  25.04.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.
  4894 of 2007 and of the Division Bench dated 20.06.2008 in
C W.A. No. 253 of 2008. In view of the fact that her tenure has
  come to an end and fresh election was also conducted, we are
  not disturbing the subsequent events. However, we make it
  clear that in view of the present order, the disqualification of
  the appellant is expunged and the appellant would be free to
D contest the elections in future.

          22. With the above conclusion and observation, the appeal
    is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                                          Appeal allowed.