statutory Right
elections
Statutory right of not only the returned candidate but also his constituency or electoral college
Holding and enjoying an office, discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the returned candidate but also his constituency or electoral college. Therefore, the procedure prescribed must be strictly adhered to and unless a clear case is made out, there cannot be any justification for his removal. Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 260
Strict adherence to the statutory provisions
Issue of removal of an elected office bearer has serious repercussion. It implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. It was held that severer the punishment, greater care has to be taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed. State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172
Obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions
Elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following the procedure prescribed by law. Where the statutory provision has very serious repercussions, it implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407
"35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions 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 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 (vide jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : AIR 1982 SC 983] , Mohan Lal Tripathi vs. District Magistrate, Rae Bareily [(1992) 4 SCC 80 : AIR 1993 SC 2042] and Ram Beti vs. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari [(1998) 1 SCC 680 : AIR 1998 SC 1222] ).
36. In view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that an elected member can be removed in exceptional circumstances giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and holding the enquiry, meeting the requirement of principles of natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to defend himself, for the reason that removal of an elected person casts stigma upon him and takes away his valuable statutory right. Not only the elected office bearer but his constituency/electoral college is also deprived of representation by the person of their choice.
37. A duly elected person is entitled to hold office for the term for which he has been elected and he can be removed only on a proved misconduct or any other procedure established under law like "no confidence motion", etc. The elected official is accountable to its electorate as he has been elected by a large number of voters and it would have serious repercussions when he is removed from the office and further declared disqualified to contest the election for a further stipulated period."