Removal of elected office bearer requires proved misconduct, reasoned findings, and strict natural justice; technical lapses are insufficient.

Removal and disqualification of an elected municipal office bearer under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act required proved misconduct or disgraceful conduct, strict statutory compliance, natural justice, and a reasoned order showing real application of mind. The SC found the authority's order cryptic and inadequate, as it did not meaningfully address the appellant's explanation or supply sufficient reasons for the drastic consequence. The alleged failure to call meetings was treated as, at most, a technical lapse, and the tender decisions were shown to be collective decisions of the council rather than deliberate wrongdoing by the appellant. The removal and disqualification were set aside and the impugned orders quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's removal and disqualification under Section 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 could be sustained on the basis of the proved charges and the reasons recorded. (ii) Whether the alleged failure to call meetings and acceptance of tenders at higher rates constituted proved misconduct or disgraceful conduct warranting disqualification.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's removal and disqualification under Section 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 could be sustained on the basis of the proved charges and the reasons recorded.

Analysis: Removal of an elected office bearer entails serious civil consequences and therefore requires strict compliance with the statutory procedure, observance of natural justice, and a reasoned decision reflecting application of mind. The order of the competent authority did not deal with the appellant's explanation in a meaningful manner and did not record adequate reasons for the conclusion that misconduct or disgraceful conduct was established. In such matters, a cryptic order cannot justify the drastic consequence of removal and six-year disqualification.

Conclusion: The removal and disqualification were not sustainable in law and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged failure to call meetings and acceptance of tenders at higher rates constituted proved misconduct or disgraceful conduct warranting disqualification.

Analysis: The omission to call a meeting within the prescribed period was, on the facts, at best a technical lapse and not shown to be intentional or actuated by improper motive. The statutory scheme itself provided other modes for convening meetings, and the appellant's explanation was not shown to be untenable. As regards the tenders, the record indicated that the decision was taken by the Council collectively after technical and administrative consideration, so the appellant could not be singled out as solely responsible. In the absence of proof of deliberate wrongdoing, the ingredients of misconduct or disgraceful conduct were not established.

Conclusion: The charges did not constitute proved misconduct or disgraceful conduct against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the appellant's removal and disqualification stood annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: An elected office bearer can be removed only for proved misconduct or disgraceful conduct on a reasoned order passed in strict compliance with the statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice; a mere technical lapse or a collective decision of the council, without proof of intentional wrongdoing, is insufficient.

---