9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. 2. Discrepancy in charges leveled and charges found proved. 3. Prejudgment of the issue by the State Government before considering the explanation of the Board. Analysis: Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. The High Court held that the proceedings under section 298 of the Assam Municipal Act were quasi-judicial and found a violation of natural justice as the Board was not given a personal hearing or the opportunity to produce evidence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the State Government followed the procedure by giving notice, seeking an explanation, and then deciding to supersede the Board. The Court ruled that since the Board did not request a personal hearing or the chance to produce evidence, there was no breach of natural justice. The Court clarified that compliance with the statutory procedure sufficed, and the absence of a demand for a personal hearing meant the State Government was not obligated to provide one. Issue 2: Discrepancy in charges leveled and charges found proved. The High Court alleged that the charges found proved differed from those initially leveled against the Board. The Supreme Court, however, scrutinized the charges and discovered that while the order of enumeration changed, the substance of the charges remained the same. The Court clarified that the additional charges in the notice were mere inferences, not requiring explanation, hence their absence in the notification superseding the Board. Consequently, the Court rejected the High Court's finding of discrepancies in the charges. Issue 3: Prejudgment of the issue by the State Government. The High Court criticized the State Government for indicating a tentative conclusion of supersession before considering the Board's explanation, deeming subsequent proceedings a farce. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the State Government's tentative conclusion did not preclude it from considering the explanation or being open to persuasion. The Court rejected the analogy to Art. 311 of the Constitution, emphasizing that s. 298 did not necessitate a second notice after considering the explanation. The Court upheld the State Government's right to tentatively indicate its course of action, ruling that the proceedings were not invalidated by the initial expression of intent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court found no violation of natural justice, no material discrepancy in charges, and no prejudgment by the State Government. The respondent's stay order allowed them to function until the end of their term, rendering the appeal moot. No costs were awarded in the circumstances.
|
