HARI DEV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apparently some passing doubt as to the correctness of the view expressed by the Full Bench in Prem Nath Bhalla V/s. State of Haryana,1971 PunLR 42 had necessitated the admission of this writ petition for a hearing by the Full Bench.

(2.) In view of what follows it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the merits or the facts in the writ petition. It suffices to recall that in Prem Nath Bhalla V/s. State of Haryana,1971 PunLR 42 the removal of the petitioner who was an Executive Officer under Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act. 1931 was challenged inter alia on the ground that the principles of natural justice had been violated in so far as no opportunity to show cause against his removal had been accorded to him under Section 3 (7) of the Act. In an elaborate judgment Pandit J., speaking for the Bench repelled this challenge on the ground that the specific language of S. 3 (7) and in particular the use of the words 'at any time' therein indicated clearly the intention of the legislature that the petitioner could not invoke the principles of natural justice or claim a show cause notice before his services were terminated.

(3.) In a rather half-hearted challenge to the correctness of the said view, Mr.Gupta has contended that in view of the subsequent observations of their Lordships in State of Punjab V/s. K. R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta, 1972 SLR 836 and in Sayeedur Rehman V/s. State of Bihar, 1973 AIR(SC) 239, the ratio in Prem Nath Bhalla V/s. State of Haryana,1971 PunLR 42 can no longer hold the field. Neither a cogent criticism of the rationale of the Full Bench has been presented nor any other ground for assailing its correctness was agitated.