(1.) The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to the order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P/5) whereby the respondents have rejected the reply of the petitioner dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P/3), which was filed pursuant to the show cause notices issued to the petitioners.
(2.) Indisputably, the respondents issued show cause notices dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P/2) and 23.12.2019 (Annexure P/4). The petitioners filed a detailed reply dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P/3). The respondents issued the impugned order whereby it was held that the reply so filed by the petitioner was devoid of substance and merits.
(3.) Criticizing this order, Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is passed by an authority enjoying delegation of power of learned Commissioner and order impugned is approved by Commissioner himself. Accordingly, there exists no in-house remedy available to the petitioners. More so, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 403, the order/proceeding under Section 307 is not covered. Since no reasons are assigned in the impugned order as to why defence taken by the petitioners is not trustworthy, impugned order runs contrary to the principles of natural justice.