RAVI YASHWANT aHOIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAIGAD & Ors.

His Holiness Keshwananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 1461: 1973 (0) Suppl. SCR 1; Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1789: 1981 (1)SCR 206; Union of India v. F Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 2112: 2002 (3) SCR 696; Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter) AIR 2003 SC 87: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 366; Ku/dip Nayar v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3127: 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1; Scheduled G Castes and Scheduled Tribes officers Welfare Council v. State of U.P. & Ors.,AIR 1997 SC 1451: 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 544; State of Punjab & Ors. v. G.S. Gi/I & Anr. AIR 1997 SC 2324: 1997 (3) SCR 412 - relied on. H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A

3.2. Basic means the basis of a thing on which it stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In democracy all citizens have equal political rights. Democracy means actual, active and effective exercise of power by the people in this regard. It means political participation of the B people in running the administration of the Government. It conveys the State of affair in which each citizen is assured of the right of equal participation in the polity. There can also be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that removal of a duly elected Member on the c basis of proved misconduct is a quasi-judicial proceeding in nature. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play and strict compliance should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision providing for the same. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office bearer. [Para 19, 23] [807-F-G; 809-C-E] 0 R.C. Poudya/ v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1804: 1993 (1) SCR 891; Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 2363: E 2003(2) SCR 1136; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh etc. etc. AIR 1999 SC 2378: 1999 (3) SCR 977; Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa (1998) 8 SCC 655; Ali Mustafa Abdul Rehman Moosa v. State of Kera/a AIR 1995 SC 244; G. Sadanandan v. State of Kera/a & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1925; Indian National Congress (/) v. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2158: 2002 (3) SCR 1040; Bachhitar Singh V. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 395: 1962 Suppl. SCR 713; Union of India v. H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364: 1964 SCR 718; Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of F G Punjab & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2524: 2001 (3) SCR 1146 - relied on.

3.3. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against H a government servant. If a temporary government RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 783 RAIGAD AND ORS. employee cannot be removed on the ground of A misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office bearer can be removed without holding a full fledged inquiry. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure B prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government c employees, for the reason, that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required. [Para 24) [809-F-H; 810-A]

3.4. In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for D which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision must show that the E authority has applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office bearer sought to be removed. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions F · as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can G claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal. [Paras 26-27) [810-E-H; 811-A-B] Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosa/ & Ors. AIR 1982 SC H 784 SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS [201'2] 3 S.C.R A 983: 1982 (3) SCR 318; Mohan/al Tripathi v, District Magistrate, Rai Barelly & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2042: 1992 (3) SCR 338; Ram Beti etc, v. District Panchayat Rajadhikari & Ors. AIR1998 SC 1222: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 582 - relied on. B RECORDING OF REASONS:

4.1. It is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking C and reasoned order. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the D validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone E against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Paras 29, 36] (811-G; 814-H; 815-A-B] F Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of UP. & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 537: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 625; L./.C. of India & Anr. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1811: 1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 349; Union of India v. M.L. Capoor & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 87: 1974 (1 ) SCR 797; G Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 935: 1992 (1) SCR 616; State of West Bengal v, Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr. AIR 1990 SC 2205: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 91; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 44; H Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1407: RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 785 RAIGAD AND ORS.