G.P. Singh, J.- 1. The petitioner, Bansmani Prasad, was elected a Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Kailashpur, in 1970. He was thereafter elected a member of the Janapada Panchayat Hanumana. He was subsequently elected President of the Janapada Panchayat. By an order passed by the State Government on 12th May 1976 the petitioner was removed from the office of President as also from the membership of the Janapada Panchayat, The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging this order.

2. It appears that an ex-parte inquiry was held against the petitioner by the Additional Collector, Rewa, as a result of which the State Government framed seven charges. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 24th January 1976 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of President as also from the membership f Janpada Panchayat, Along with this notice, some particulars of the charges were also enclosed, The petitioner denied the charges and submitted his reply on 26th February 1976. The State Government then passed the impugned order on 12th May 1976. This order recites that as a result of the inquiry made by the Additional Collector, the petitioner was essentially found guilty of the following charges:

(1) The petitioner indiscriminately transferred teachers and misbehaved with lady teachers.

(2) The petitioner drew false travelling allowance and Dearness Allowance.

(3) The petitioner resided permanently in the Janapada office building.

The order further states that the explanation of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and he was guilty of the aforesaid charges of misconduct.

3. The petitioner's grievance is that in passing the order of removal he was not afforded proper opportunity to show cause as is contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (l) of section 116 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act. The proviso refer led to here requires that "no member President or Vice-President shall be removed unless be has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his office."

4. It is an admitted position that the inquiry held by the Additional Collector was an ex-parte inquiry in which the petitioner was not asked to participate. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner is, no doubt, accompanied by particulars of the charges, but it does not state as to what material or evidence was collected by the Additional Collector against the petitioner in the inquiry. The report of the inquiry was also not supplied to the petitioner. After the petitioner denied the charges and gave his explanation, there was no further inquiry. The order removing the petitioner does not give the reasons why the petitioner's explanation was rejected and the charges were held to be proved. In our opinion, the procedure followed in removing the petitioner cannot be said to have afforded him opportunity to show cause as required by the proviso.

5. It cannot be disputed that opportunity to show cause must be real opportunity. The person proceeded against must not only be told the allegations of misconduct, but be must also be informed of the material which is sought to be used against him in support of the charges so that he may offer his explanation in respect of that material. A person who holds office as a member or as President has a right to continue in the office until the expiry of the term. The order of removal which is passed under section 116 affects this valuable right and the finding of misconduct on which such an order is based casts a stigma on the public life of the person. Having regard to these consequences, we are of opinion that the power of removal is quasi-judicial in nature. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1571 a provision in the Punjab Municipal Act relating to the removal of members was considered by the Supreme Court. It was held in that case that the order contemplated by the provision removing a member was quasi-judicial in natu