9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of removal from office under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Detailed Analysis: 1. Case of Shri Baktawar Singh: - Appointed as a member of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala for five years. - Removed from office by the Punjab Government under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. - Challenged the removal through a writ petition, which was accepted by the High Court. - Allegations included trying to win support from MLAs and not discharging duties impartially. - Minister's order for removal lacked specific reasons or findings of guilt. - Minister's decision based on vague grounds, lacking concrete evidence. - Removal deemed unjustified due to lack of specific charges and vague findings. 2. Case of Shri Rajinder Pal Abrol: - Appointed as an honorary member of the Board. - Removed by the Punjab Government under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. - Alleged charges related to acts and omissions before his appointment. - Minister's removal order lacked specific charges or findings. - Minister's order considered arbitrary and lacking justification. - Removal order not a speaking order and arbitrary in nature. 3. General Observations: - Section 10(1)(e)(iv) removal considered a punishment requiring adherence to natural justice principles. - Removal orders should specify charges and provide a reasonable opportunity for defense. - Minister's orders in both cases lacked specific reasons and failed to establish guilt. - Lack of concrete evidence and arbitrary decision-making led to dismissal of appeals. - Appeals failed, and costs awarded against the State Government. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of following natural justice principles in removal proceedings under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Court highlighted the need for specific charges, concrete evidence, and a fair opportunity for defense before imposing removal as a punitive measure. The lack of detailed reasoning and arbitrary decision-making in the Minister's orders led to the dismissal of the appeals brought by the State Government.
|
