TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir means in Police Constable Recruitment Test-2012 (for short "the PCRT-2012"). The petitioners were called upon to reply to such show cause notice on or before 23.01.2018. 2. The petitioners were selected in PCRT-2012 conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board (for short "the Board"). Initially, the selection of 34 candidates was cancelled vide order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) inter alia on the ground that illegalities in the said examination have led to registration of Crime No.18/2013 by Special Task Force, Bhopal. The order is based upon a communication received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Bhopal (M.P.) that OMR answer-sheets of 34 candidates were examined by the State Examiner of Ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n No.9690/2014 and companion cases, decided on 24th September, 2014. For the same reasons, even these petitions ought to succeed and deserve to be disposed of on the same terms as noted in the above said decision. In that, VYAPAM will be at liberty to commence independent enquiry on the basis of information received from the Investigating Agency (Special Task Force) and to proceed against the concerned petitioners and similarly placed persons on the basis of view formed by it in the proposed enquiry. The enquiry to be resorted by VYAPAM must proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left open. Accordingly, impugned decision of VYAPAM in the respective petitions is quashed and set aside w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present petition. 5. In the case of Raymond Woollen Mills (supra), the Supreme Court was seized of a matter where, after the show cause notice, reply was filed and the Competent Authority passed an order under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. That is not a case wherein the show cause notice was interfered with for the reason that the same is arbitrary or illegal. In Indu Bhushan Dwivedi's case (supra), again it was not the show cause notice, which was interfered with but the final decision taken in pursuance to the show cause notice in which the delinquent submitted his reply. Even that is not a case where the show cause notice was interfered with soon afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice." 7. In another judgment reported as (2004) 3 SCC 440 (Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another), t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted." 8. The principle laid down in the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Brahm Datt Sharma (supra) and Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in its later judgment reported as (2006) 12 SCC 33 (Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others) wherein it was held as under:- "9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not preceded by any show cause notice. It is well settled that any adverse order could be passed only after complying with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court directed the Board to issue show cause notice. Such show cause notice now issued, has to be read in continuation of the earlier order of cancellation of candidature passed on 26.05.2014 that the petitioners have used different pens for answering the multiple choice questions. It is for the petitioners to submit reply as they may consider appropriate to enable the competent Authority to take a decision but we do not find that the petitioners can be permitted to challenge the show cause notice in writ petition without submitting the reply. 10. The argument th....