The court emphasized that the allegations in the notices were not vague, the authority had not pre-judged the issue, and the Special Auditor's involvement in the enquiry did not warrant quashing the notices.

1. - The petitioner, who was working as Manager of the Shergarh Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Limited, has filed this writ petition in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the notices issued by the respondent No. 2, the Special Auditor, Co-operative Societies, Banswara, be quashed. The said notices have been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on three grounds viz., (i) that the allegations made in the notices are vague and indefinite; (ii) that even before the initiation of enquiry, the authority had pre-judged the issue and decided against the petitioner; and (iii) that the Special Auditor himself made the enquiry and, therefore, he could not have proceeded with the inquiry against him and the enquiry should have been entrusted to an independent authority other than the Special Auditor.

2. It may be stated that by an interim order passed on 16.5.85, this Court stayed the respondents from proceeding in the matter. However, on 9.11.87 the said interim order was modified and the respondents were permitted to proceed with the enquiry but they were restrained from passing final order. Thereafter an application was submitted on 4.1.94 by the respondents stating that the enquiry is completed and they may be permitted to pass final order.

3. It may be stated that in all five notices were issued to the petitioner. Notices Exhibits 1 to 3 were issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Banswara and Exhibits 4 and 5 were issued by the respondent No. 2, Special Auditor. The grievance made in this petition by the petitioner is that the Special Auditor has issued the notices for the same mis-conduct for which the notices were issued by the Assistant Registrar. But that grievance no more survives as the said notices Exhibits 1 to 3 issued by the Assistant Registrar were withdrawn during the pendency and final disposal of the petition and, therefore, the respondents were proceeding against the petitioner for the notices Exhibits 4 and 5.

4. Coming to the first submission raised by Mr. Kewal Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the notices are absolutely vague and indefinite, and therefore, the petitioner is not able to represent his case, is required to be rejected on the short ground that the petitioner did reply to the notices. Not only that, he participated in the enquiry and the enquiry is also over. Going through the contents of the notices also, it cannot be said that the allegations are so vague and indefinite which would cause any prejudice to the petitioner in defending his case. Therefore, also this contention is required to be rejected.

5. Second submission made by Mr. Kewal Chand that the authorities have already decided against the petitioner and thus pre-judged the issue, therefore, the notices should be quashed, is also of no substance. While issuing the notices, the authority has to come to a tentative finding that there is a prima facie material against the person who is charged and that has exactly what has been stated in the notices. That would not mean that the matter is pre- judged or pre-decided. Therefore, this submission is also rejected.

6. The last submission made by Mr. Kewal Chand that the petitioner has apprehension that he will not get justice from the Special Auditor because he himself enquired into the matter and has issued the notices, also without only substance. If the Special Auditor himself is the disciplinary authority, then there is nothing wrong to proceed against the petitioner in the enquiry. It is a matter of co-incident that the Special Auditor being the disciplinary authority has also to make a fact finding enquiry. If he is otherwise competent, then there is no reason to believe that he will act arbitrarily. The petitioner has been given due opportunity to defend his case which he did in the enquiry. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded.

7. In view of the