Case: State of Punjab &amp; Others Vs. Bakhtawar Singh &amp; Others

2. We shall first take up the case of the respondent Shri Bakhtawar Singh. He was appointed as a member of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala by the Punjab Government on April 29, 1967 for a period of five years under Section 5 of the Act. After giving him a show cause notice and obtaining his reply thereto the Punjab Government removed him from the membership of the Electricity Board on April 25, 1969 in purported exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. He challenged the validity of the order removing him from office by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on various grounds. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has accepted his writ petition and quashed the order complained of.      3. Now coming to the case of the respondent Shri Rajinder Pal Abrol, he was appointed as a member of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala by the Punjab Government on August 20, 1968 for a period of five years under Section 5 of the Act. After giving him a show cause notice and obtaining his reply thereto, he was removed from the membership of the Board on August 1, 1969. The Government purported to remove him under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. He also challenged the validity of the order removing him before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. His petition was also accepted and the impugned order struck down.      4. Aggrieved by the judgments of the High Court, the State Government has brought up these appeals.

Court's reasoning:
6. Various grounds were taken by Shri Bakhtawar Singh and Shri Rajinder Pal Abrol in challenging the validity of the impugned orders. We have not thought to go into all those grounds as we are of opinion that the impugned orders are vitiated for the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter8. It is clear from a reading of this section that removal contemplated under Section 10(1)(e)(iv) is as a punishment. That being so natural justice requires that the person complained of should be informed of the charges against him and that he should be given a reasonable opportunity consistent with the charges levelled against him to rebut those charges. We have not thought it necessary in this case to go into the question whether a formal enquiry was necessary while taking action under that provision13. This order cannot be said to be a speaking order. It is arbitrary to the core. Such an order cannot be upheld. Hence it is not necessary to go into the other contentions advanced on behalf of Shri Abrol.