Removal of an elected municipal representative requires substantiated evidence, recorded reasons, and compliance with natural justice.

Tmt. K. Sakuntala was elected as the Councillor of the 11th Ward of Usilampatti Municipal Council on 22 February 2022 and was subsequently elected Chairperson on 4 March 2022

The State Government issued a show-cause notice dated 22 October 2024 under Section 52(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, alleging, inter alia, unauthorised collection and non-collection of rent, causing financial loss to the Municipality, interference with municipal staff, improper conduct of Council meetings, unauthorised approval of works, and cancellation of a solid-waste-management contract

After considering her explanation and the para-wise remarks obtained from the Director of Municipal Administration, the Government removed her from both the offices of Chairperson and Ward Councillor by G.O.(N) No.41 dated 26 March 2025

In W.P. No.12614 of 2025, the High Court set aside the removal order for violation of natural justice, non-supply of the para-wise remarks, failure to pass a speaking order, and non-application of mind in removing her as Councillor when the original notice concerned only her office as Chairperson

On remand, a fresh show-cause notice dated 2 September 2025 was issued concerning removal from both offices. The petitioner submitted explanations and sought, inter alia, an opportunity to cross-examine the Municipal Commissioner

The Government nevertheless removed her from both posts by G.O.(N) No.375 dated 7 November 2025. A learned Single Judge set aside that order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The State authorities challenged that decision in the present writ appeal

Whether the fresh show-cause notice could validly contemplate removal of the petitioner from both the offices of Chairperson and Ward Councillor, although the underlying allegations arose principally from her conduct as Chairperson?

Whether the Government’s removal order was vitiated by non-application of mind and failure to disclose sufficient evidentiary material and reasons under Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998?

Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Government’s failure to grant her request to cross-examine the Municipal Commissioner?

Whether, in the circumstances involving serious and disputed allegations against an elected local-government representative, a proper enquiry was necessary before ordering removal?

The Court applied Section 52(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, under which the Government may remove a Councillor, Deputy Chairperson or Chairperson for wilful disobedience of the Act, rules, bye-laws or lawful orders, or abuse of power, but must provide an opportunity to explain and record the reasons for removal

The statutory opinion under Section 52 must be rational, evidence-based and supported by disclosed materials; mere rejection of an explanation or reliance on unsubstantiated allegations is insufficient

Section 102 places the grant of municipal licences and collection of licence fees primarily upon the Municipal Commissioner, read with Section 114-A concerning action against unauthorised occupants

The Court relied on the principles in Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2001) 6 SCC 260, that removal of an elected office-bearer is a serious action affecting both the office-holder and the represented constituency, and therefore requires strict adherence to statutory procedure, natural justice, and a clear, reasoned finding

It also relied on Umesh Baijal v. State of U.P., 2003 SCC OnLine All 1560, recognising that while a full-fledged enquiry is not indispensable in every case, it is ordinarily necessary where serious allegations are disputed and require proof through documentary and oral evidence

The Court further invoked the constitutional principle of local self-government under Articles 243P(e) and 243Q

The Court held that the fresh notice could legally cover both posts because the allegations—financial loss, alleged misappropriation, unauthorised sanction of works and related misconduct—were sufficiently grave to potentially render the petitioner unfit to continue as Councillor as well as Chairperson

However, the validity of the notice did not establish the allegations. The impugned Government Order merely stated that the petitioner’s explanation and the para-wise remarks had been considered and that the allegations stood proved; it disclosed no supporting evidence, evaluation of the competing versions, or rational basis for the statutory opinion under Section 52

The Court also noted that the alleged rent-related misconduct primarily concerned functions assigned to the Municipal Commissioner under Section 102, while the record did not establish that the petitioner had prevented the Commissioner from acting lawfully

Similarly, the Council meeting had been held in the Chairperson’s chamber because the meeting hall was recorded as unfit, and there was no conclusive evidence that her son interfered with the proceedings

The Government additionally failed to address the petitioner’s specific request to cross-examine the Municipal Commissioner, thereby violating natural justice

Given the seriousness of the allegations, their factual dispute, and the petitioner’s status as an elected representative, the Court found that a proper enquiry with disclosure of materials and an effective opportunity of defence was required

The Court set aside G.O.(N) No.375 dated 7 November 2025, by which the petitioner had been removed as Chairperson and Ward Councillor, and remitted the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration

The Government was directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the Municipal Commissioner, comply fully with the principles of natural justice, and pass a reasoned order supported by sufficient materials and disclosed reasons

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed