The principles of natural justice do not apply to the removal of a Vice-Chairman of a Municipality nominated by the Chairman, as the Vice-Chairman holds office during the pleasure of the Chairman.

( 1 ) THE order of removal of the Vice-Chairman passed by the Chairman of egra Municipality on 5th June, 2006 vide Annexure 'p-6' to this writ petition is under challenge in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE Vice-Chairman of the said Municipality was removed on two-fold grounds which are as follows:

(i) The Vice-Chair man has not performed his duties as entrusted to him properly, and (ii) The Vice-Chairman has rot maintained the oath of secrecy which he had taken at the time of assuming the office of Vice-Chairman.

( 3 ) MR. Moitra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that when the Vice-Chairman was sought to be removed with a stigma of inefficiency and his failure to maintain the oath of secrecy, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the Vice-Chairman before his removal.

( 4 ) MR. Moitra thus submitted that whenever the Vice-Chairman is sought to be removed with imputation, he should be given an opportunity to explain the charges on which he was sought to be removed by the Chairman, otherwise the Vice-Chairman will have to carry the stigma ail-throughout even though imputation has no basis.

( 5 ) MR. Moitra further submitted that even though section 21 of the West bengal Municipal Act, 1993 does not specifically provide for affording an opportunity of hearing to the Vice-Chairman before his removal, but still then, since such right of hearing was not excluded specifically by the legislature, principles of natural justice should be followed in case of removal of the Vice-Chairman, particularly when he is stigmatised.

( 6 ) IN support of such submission, Mr. Moitra relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i) Shukdev Singh vs. Bhagatram, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1331, wherein it was held that whenever a man's rights are affected by a decision taken under statutory powers, the Court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute as non-observance of the rules of natural justice and/or non-compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute vitiates the action of the authority.

(ii) Hukum Chand vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1976 SC 789, wherein it was held that where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than one provided, such exercise will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice.

(iii) Rajesh Kumar vs. Deputy CIT, reported in 2007 (2) SCC 181, wherein it was held that simply because certain consequences would ensue if the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, the same by itself would not mean that Court would not insist on complying with the fundamental principles of law as the observance of principles of natural justice can only be excluded when Parliament could have said so expressly. It was further held therein that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf as compliance of the principles of natural justice in such a case would be implicit.

(iv) S. L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 136, wherein it was held that merely because an opportunity of hearing is not expressly provided in section 238 (1) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, it cannot be inferred that the principles audi alterant partem was excluded from section 238 (1) as administrative action under section 238 (1) of the said Act entails civil consequences.

( 7 ) RELYING upon the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Moitra submitted that the impugned order cannot be maintained as the said order was passed without observing the principles of natural justice though the impugned order entails civil consequences.

( 8 ) MR. Moitra further contended that when removal was sought with a stigma, removal cannot be maintained even by withdrawal of stigma at this stage as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document