Elected Office Is Not at the Mercy of Bureaucratic Whims: Allahabad High Court Quashes Removal of Nagar Palika President for Lack of Full-Fledged Inquiry

“If Even a Temporary Government Employee Cannot Be Removed Without Inquiry, How Can an Elected Representative Be Removed Without One?” –  Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) delivered a landmark ruling in Irfan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another (Writ – C No. 11507 of 2025), emphatically holding that the removal of an elected municipal President without conducting a full-fledged inquiry is in direct violation of Section 48(2-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipality Act, 1916 and the settled principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla quashed the October 29, 2025 removal order of Irfan Ahmad, President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhinga (District Shravasti), citing “complete procedural failure” on the part of the State authorities in conducting an inquiry which was neither “legally adequate” nor “constitutionally permissible”.

Removal Based Solely on Preliminary Inquiries Is Constitutionally Unsustainable

The central issue before the Court was whether the inquiry conducted by the State Government against the petitioner, an elected municipal President, satisfied the mandatory standard of a “full-fledged inquiry” under Section 48(2-A) of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916. The Court answered this question with an unequivocal “no”.

“Once the President of a Municipality denies the charges against him, and the explanation is not found satisfactory, the State Government is duty-bound to conduct a full-fledged inquiry. A mere preliminary probe or exchange of documents does not satisfy this mandate,” the Court held, relying extensively on the Full Bench judgment in Mehrunnissa v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine All 1902), which was itself rooted in the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector [(2012) 4 SCC 407].

Political Allegations, Procedural Missteps, and Prejudiced Proceedings

Irfan Ahmad, a Bahujan Samaj Party candidate, was elected as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhinga, on May 26, 2023. The controversy began when a series of complaints were filed in 2024 and early 2025, alleging that Ahmad had misused municipal funds, shown favoritism in tenders, and awarded work to relatives, including purchasing construction material from a brick kiln owned by his father.

Multiple district-level inquiry committees—constituted by the District Magistrate—submitted preliminary reports against him. Based on these, a show-cause notice was issued on May 21, 2025. The petitioner submitted his reply, attended a personal hearing on July 25, 2025, but no further inquiry followed. Ultimately, the State passed the impugned removal order on October 29, 2025, invoking Section 48 of the Act, citing misconduct and financial irregularities.

However, the Court noted with concern that: “No formal charge-sheet was ever prepared, no Inquiry Officer was appointed, no oral evidence was recorded in the presence of the petitioner, and no cross-examination of witnesses was permitted.”

Court Slams 'Mechanical' Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Power

The Court found that the removal order was not based on legally admissible evidence. Referring to State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh [2025 INSC 555], the Bench underscored: “A document does not prove itself. In the inquiry, therefore, the contents of the relied-on documents have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the contents of such document and who can depose as regards its authenticity.”

Moreover, the cross-examination report dated July 9, 2025, which formed a critical part of the final decision, was never provided to the petitioner—despite specific requests.

“Denial of inquiry material strikes at the very heart of natural justice. The right to defend is meaningless without access to the evidence being used,” the Court observed.

Elected Representatives Stand on a Higher Constitutional Pedestal

In a powerful affirmation of democratic principles, the Bench reiterated that elected officials cannot be removed without the strictest procedural compliance: “Even a temporary government employee cannot be dismissed without full-fledged inquiry. The position of an elected municipal President—who is the voice of the people—demands even more rigorous protection.”

Relying on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir and Makarand Alias Nandu v. State of Maharashtra, the Court stressed that political convenience or bureaucratic expediency cannot override the legal rights of elected office-bearers.

“Removal of an elected office-bearer is a serious matter. His ouster does not just curtail his statutory right, but also deprives the constituency of its chosen representative.”

Preliminary Inquiries Are No Substitute for Due Process

The Court drew a clear line between preliminary and regular inquiries, citing Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat [(2013) 4 SCC 301]: “Preliminary inquiries are merely for forming a prima facie view and cannot be used to impose punitive measures. Evidence collected in such inquiries without participation of the delinquent cannot be relied upon.”

In the present case, no oral testimony was recorded, no charges formally framed, and the reliance on statements collected behind the petitioner’s back was held to be “legally impermissible”.

Show-Cause Notices Cannot Replace a Proper Inquiry

The Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that issuing a show-cause notice and granting oral hearing sufficed. The Bench held:

“Issuance of repeated notices and seeking replies cannot be a substitute for oral inquiry. A full-fledged inquiry involves charge framing, evidence recording, cross-examination and reasoned findings—none of which was done here.”

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was not even provided with documents relied upon in the inquiry, such as the family tree used to support allegations of nepotism.

Judicial Directions and Consequential Relief

Holding the impugned order to be a classic case of “procedural violation and non-application of mind”, the High Court quashed the October 29, 2025 order removing Irfan Ahmad from office. The State Government was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) and the principles laid down in Mehrunnissa, Ravi Yashwant Bhoir, and R.S. Khan.

“Unless a proper inquiry is held and charges are proved through legally admissible evidence, an elected official cannot be condemned,” the Court concluded.

Procedural Rigour Is Not an Option, But a Mandate

This judgment reaffirms the principle that democratic institutions and their elected representatives are not to be undermined by administrative shortcuts. Section 48(2-A) does not merely offer discretion—it mandates inquiry, evidence, and procedural integrity.

By holding that elected officials cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiries akin to those required for government servants, the High Court has upheld the sanctity of democratic office and laid down robust procedural benchmarks for future cases involving local bodies.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2026