Natural justice and removal power: prior hearing may be excluded where the statute shows clear legislative intent and relevant material exists.

A statutory removal power may validly exclude a pre-decisional hearing where the legislative scheme shows a conscious intent to dispense with prior notice, and natural justice will not be read into the provision in the absence of ambiguity. The power remains legally controlled if it can be exercised only on relevant material showing incapacity, refusal to work, or conduct prejudicial to the Board's interest. Judicial review is limited to whether the satisfaction was bona fide and based on material. Removal based on relevant material and exercised in public interest was upheld, and the mala fides challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory power of removal under Section 10(7) excluded a pre-decisional hearing and was invalid for violation of natural justice or Article 14. (ii) Whether the appellant's removal from office was supported by relevant material and was vitiated by mala fides.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory power of removal under Section 10(7) excluded a pre-decisional hearing and was invalid for violation of natural justice or Article 14.

Analysis: The Act deliberately omitted the proviso contained in the earlier Ordinance that had required a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and substituted a regime of removal on one month's notice or pay in lieu. The legislative history showed a conscious intent to exclude prior notice and hearing. The power was therefore not an unfettered or unguided one, because it could be exercised only when relevant material existed showing incapacity, refusal to work, or conduct detrimental to the Board's interest. In such a situation, the principles of natural justice were not to be read into the provision.

Conclusion: The statutory provision did not require a pre-decisional hearing and was not liable to be struck down on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's removal from office was supported by relevant material and was vitiated by mala fides.

Analysis: The power of removal under the Act was to be exercised on relevant material and in public interest, and judicial review was confined to examining whether the satisfaction was bona fide and based on material. The record considered by the High Court justified the conclusion that the appellant's continuance was detrimental to the Board's interest, and the allegations of malice were not established. No miscarriage of justice in the appreciation of facts was shown.

Conclusion: The removal was upheld and the charge of mala fides failed.

Final Conclusion: The removal order was sustained, and the challenge to the statutory validity and factual basis of the action did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislative scheme shows a conscious exclusion of prior hearing, the principles of natural justice are not implied, and a removal power resting on subjective satisfaction is valid if exercised on relevant material and in bona fide public interest.

---