N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by one Talati-cum-Mantri in the service of the District Panchayat of Bharuch. The petition is directed against the order of his dismissal passed by the Deputy District Development Officer of the District Panchayat. The said officer is the sole respondent in this petition. The impugned order is Annexure D to the petition. ( 2 ) A few facts require to be stated. An enquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of the four charges by one Mr. Vasvani who was the Deputy District Development Officer at the relevant time. There were four charges levelled against him. They were: (1) Purchasing property without applying for the previous permission of the Panchayat and thus violating the Conduct Rule 16; (2) Purchasing another property in the name of his wife without the Governments permission; (3) Taking bribe of Rs. 300. 00 from one Jaisinh Umedsinh in respect of some partition matter; and (4) Taking bribe of Rs. 200/- from Muljibhai Dhulabhai;at the close of the enquiry Mr. Vasvani who has filed the affidavit-inreply in this petition submitted his report. As far as the two charges of bribery are concerned he said that the charges could not be said to be proved but the conduct of the delinquent in respect of those charges was not above the breath of suspicion. The other two charges were held as proved. Thereafter the Deputy District Development Officer the competent authority gave the notice Annexure A dated 20-2-75 to the delinquent calling upon him to show cause why the four charges which were held as proved as per the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau should not result into the infliction of any one of the penalties mentioned in Rule 5 of the Gujarat Panchayat Services Conduct Rules 1964 and the petitioner should give his explanation to the same because the charges were held as proved. It was further stated that the petitioner was liable to be visited with any of the punishments provided in Rule 5 of the above-said Rules. The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure R denying the charges and then the impugned order came to be passed. It is not clear whether the officer who conducted the enquiry namely Mr. Vasvani was the very officer who passed the impugned order Annexure D. But from the affidavit-in filed filed by Mr. The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure R denying the charges and then the impugned order came to be passed. It is not clear whether the officer who conducted the enquiry namely Mr. Vasvani was the very officer who passed the impugned order Annexure D. But from the affidavit-in filed filed by Mr. Vasvani it appears possible that the officer who held the enquiry and the officer who passed the order might be different. At any rate neither the petitioners advocate nor the advocate of the respondent is in a position to lend any light in that regard. However the matter does not depend on this finding one way or the other and therefore I ignore it and proceed further. ( 3 ) MR. Vyas the learned advocate appearing for the sole respondent herein raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition by urging that the petition had not availed himself of the alternative remedy of appeal to the District Development Officer and of the revision to the Development Commissioner of the State and he urged that on this short ground the petition should be rejected. Not as a mandate of law (because of Article 226 (3) of the constitution of India as was there in the year 1976 having been deleted) but as a matter of self-imposed rule of procedure developed by this court and the Supreme Court the prerogative writ jurisdiction is not entertained when the litigant has not exhausted alternative remedies and particularly the remedies like an appeal under some law. This question however was prominently before this court when the matter was at the admissional stage. Despite this point having been urged this court admitted the matter. This would mean that the petitioner was led into the belief that this court was not insistent on that normal rule of exhausting alternative remedy before approaching this Court and it would be too late in the day for me now to reject this petition after more than 32 years of its life in this court. Because of this courts action in admitting the matter the petitioner has lost that chance of preferring appeal. Moreover as I shall instantly show the order is proved to be ex-facie bad for a variety of reasons. ( 4 ) THE first patent flaw is that the notice did not call upon the delinquent to show cause against the dismissal or removal. Moreover as I shall instantly show the order is proved to be ex-facie bad for a variety of reasons. ( 4 ) THE first patent flaw is that the notice did not call upon the delinquent to show cause against the dismissal or removal. He was simply told as to show cause against the infliction of any of the punishments mentioned in Rule 5 of the Gujarat Panchayat Services Conduct Rules 1964 The second show cause notice is primarily intended to elicit a conceivable ground from the delinquent for showing cause against the punishment and when the maximum punishment is not mooted out by the authority issuing the second show cause notice the very purpose of providing for the second notice is frustrated. The petitioner for aught we know might have been misled into the belief that he was not facing the danger of extreme penalty that could be inflicted on him in those departmental proceedings. It therefore appears on the face of the record that the notice Annexure A which ultimately resulted into the impugned order itself was misleading and on this ground the order Annexure D will be required to be set aside. ( 5 ) THE second reason pointing to the very conclusion of the ex-facie invalidity of the order Annexure D is that the notice for the first time is based on the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau. As the notice Annexure A itself shows the only basis of this second show cause notice is the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and not the enquiry proceedings. It does not appear from the record or from the report of the enquiry officer that the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was made available to the petitioner. Mr. Vyas the learned advocate appearing for the respondent was not in a position to state even at the Bar that the copy of the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was made available to the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply also does not say so. Mr. Vyas the learned advocate appearing for the respondent was not in a position to state even at the Bar that the copy of the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was made available to the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply also does not say so. It is also true that the petitioner has not raised this ground in his petition but when at the close of the enquiry the second show cause notice is given and when the earlier report which was the culmination of the enquiry did not specifically refer to it it is reasonable to believe that Anti-Corruption Bureaus report was brought to the fore-front for the first time when the notice Annexure A came to be issued. ( 6 ) THE third ground also stares in the face. The notice Annexure A mentions that charges of bribery of Rs. 300. 00 and Rs. 200. 00 are proved whereas the last paragraph of that notice refers to the conduct of the delinquent open to suspicion in that regard. This is neither here nor there. It is therefore evident that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to make his representation and on this short ground also the impugned order Annexure D is required to be declared as bad at law. ( 7 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside the order Annexure D. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. This judgment will not be a bar to initiate fresh proceedings on the very charges if the disciplinary authority so deems fit. Petition allowed. .