MAMTA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the show-cause notice dated 18-02-2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.1.

(2.) Shri Kaurav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assailed this notice by contending that it is issued in a premeditated manner and it contains definite findings and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be treated to be a show-cause notice. Once certain findings are recorded in the impugned show-cause notice, the petitioner cannot be compelled to file reply and face the proceeding because the same will be an empty formality. Secondly, it is urged that impugned show-cause notice is based on the report of three member committee. The said adverse material, on which show-cause notice is founded upon, is not supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) To elaborate, learned Senior Counsel submits that once definite findings are recorded in the impugned show-cause notice, the said show-cause notice is no notice worth the name and a similar show-cause notice could not sustain judicial scrutiny in WP. No.2492/2019 (Smt. Kanta Yogesh Sadarang v. State of M.P. and Ors.) decided on 14-02-2019. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on (2010) 13 SCC 427 (ORYS Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.) and (2012) 4 SCC 407 (Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Ors.) to bolster his contention that the elected representative of Municipal Corporation must be treated on a higher pedestal in comparison to a temporary government servant. Once a temporary servant cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged enquiry, it is difficult to imagine how such elected Office Bearer can be removed without holding full fledged enquiry. In the manner impugned show-cause notice is worded, it amounts to giving finding and, therefore, in the teeth of law laid down in the judgment of ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the show-cause notice cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1980 MPLJ 34 (Bansmani Prasad Veerbhadra Shukla v. State of M.P. and Ors.) relied upon to contend that showcause notice must provide real opportunity. The adverse material, on the strength of which impugned order is passed, should be provided to the petitioner. If the material is provided subsequently, it will not serve the purpose.