JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - By this writ petition, Petitioners have challenged the order dated 2-9-1992, passed by the Government of U.P. u/s 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, (here-in-after referred to as the Act), appointing an authorised controller for Dharma Samaj Post Graduate College, Aligarh (here-in-after referred to as the college) which is affiliated to Agra University. Agra. 2. Although, the State has not filed counter affidavit but a counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 3, who is the Principal of the college and who was impleaded as a party to the writ petition vide court's order dated 8-9-1992. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 3. I notice dated 29-4-1992 was given to the Petitioners by the State Government u/s 57 of the Act calling upon them to show cause why an authorised controller u/s 58 of the Act should not be appointed. The notice contains the following charges in respect of which the Petitioners were required to submit their reply : (i) A jeep was purchased from the college fund in the name of the Secretary of the college and there was misuse of the Jeep. (ii) Sale of the land of the college situated at Badarbagh at lower price. (iii) Irregularities in the construction Of 25-30 shops on the land of the college. (iv) Non-deposit of subscription of the provident fund of the employees of the college in the account regularly. (v) Irregularities in purchase of furniture. (vi) withdrawing a sum of Rs. 60000/- from computer account illegally. (vii) Irregularities and delay committed by the management in the payment of salaries to the teachers and employees of the college. Petitioners submitted their reply in response to the above show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure II to this writ petition. The Government thereafter vide its order dated 2-9-1992 has appointed authorised controller in exercise of its power u/s 58 of the Act. 4. Petitioners submitted their reply in response to the above show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure II to this writ petition. The Government thereafter vide its order dated 2-9-1992 has appointed authorised controller in exercise of its power u/s 58 of the Act. 4. Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on four grounds, namely (i) notice u/s 57 of the Act does not contain anything, which can be co related to clauses (i) to (v) of that section, (ii) notice is vague, (iii) findings recorded by the Government are based on material, which was neither disclosed nor supplied to the Petitioners at any stage of proceedings ;and (v) many findings recorded by the Government are vague and are based on the material/ information not disclosed to the Petitioners. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the, Respondent No. 3 apart from disputing the above submissions, ha? made two submission, namely (i) Act does not require that notice should contain specific charges or material particulars, and (ii) there is nothing to show that there is any prejudice caused to the Petitioners on account of non disclosure of material in the charges contained in the notice. 5. Section 57 of the Act under which the Government has to issue a show cause notice to the management before appointing an authorised controller u/s 58 is as follows : 57. Power of the State Government to issue notice-If the State Government receives information in respect of any affiliated or associated, college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a local authority). Power of the State Government to issue notice-If the State Government receives information in respect of any affiliated or associated, college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a local authority). (i) that its Management has persistently committed wilful default in paying the salary of the teachers or other employees of the college by the twentieth day of the month next following the month in respect of which or any part of which it is payable; or (ii) that its Management has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing such qualifications as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of academic standards in relation to the college or has appointed or retained in service any teacher in contravention of the Statute or ordinance, or (iii) that any dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office bearers of its Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the college; or (iv) that its Management has persistently failed to provide the college with such adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture, stationary, laboratory, equipment, and other facilities, as are necessary for the efficient administration of the college ; or (v) that its management has substantially, diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the college to the detriment of the college ; it may call upon the Management to show cause why an order u/s 58 should not be made; Provided that where it is in dispute as to who are the office bearers of the Management, such notice shall be issued to all persons claiming to be so. 6. Section 58 of the Act so far as it is relevant is also quoted below : 58. Authorised controller. 6. Section 58 of the Act so far as it is relevant is also quoted below : 58. Authorised controller. - (1) If the State Government after considering the explanation, if any submitted by the Management u/s 57 is satisfied that any ground mentioned in that section exists, it may, by order, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised con(sic) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years as may be (sic) the management of the college and its property to "the exclusion (sic) management, and whenever the Authorised controller so takes over (sic) he shall, subject only to such restrictions as State Govern,-(sic) have in relation to the management of the college and (sic) such powers and authority as the Management would have its property were not taken over under this sub section. (Emphasis supplied). (sic) perusal of sections 57 and 58 of the Act, it is clear that (sic) can appoint authorised controller only if any of the grounds (sic) 57 exists Clause (i) of section 57 deals with the wilful (sic) 1992 default on the part of the management in paying salary of the teachers and employees of the college within time; clause (ii) contemplates failure on the part of the management to appoint teaching staff possessing requisite qualifications or retention of a teacher in service in contravention of the Statute or Ordinance clause (iii) contemplates a situation when the smooth and orderly administration of the college has been affected due to managerial dispute, clause (iv) relates to persistent failure of the management to provide the college with adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture stationery laboratory, equipment and other facilities and clause (v) deals with a situation where "management has substantially diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the college to the detriment of the college." There are no allegations in any of the charges mentioned in the notice except charge No. (vii) which could be co-related to the grounds specified in sub sections (i) to (v) of section 57. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the grounds mentioned in clauses (iv) and (v) of section 57 of the Act exist on account of which the authorised controller has been appointed. There is nothing in the notice, which can be co-related to clause (iv). In the impugned order, it has been stated that the grounds mentioned in clauses (iv) and (v) of section 57 of the Act exist on account of which the authorised controller has been appointed. There is nothing in the notice, which can be co-related to clause (iv). Even the findings recorded by the State in the impugned order cannot be said to have anything to do with contingencies contemplated by clause (iv). Only clause, which is left regarding the applicability of which argument has been made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, in clause (v). A Division Bench of this Court in N.R.M.E. Coronation College Association Khurja v. State 1979 ALJ 1103, has laid down that an authorised controller cannot be appointed on the ground specified in clause (v) of section 57 unless the Government records finding on two points, namely, that there has been diversion etc. and that it was to the detriment of the college. The relevant passage from the said judgment, as is contained in paragraph 16, is reproduced below : Interpreting section 57(v) from the angle pointed out above, we find that for applying section for taking the source the State Government is required to see that the funds of the college have been diverted by the managing committee to the detriment or loss of the college. An appointment of an Authorised controller can be made on the ground of diversion if it is established that the diversion has resulted in causing loss or damage to the College. For passing an order, the State Government is required to record both the findings, namely, that there had been a diversion and to the detriment of the college. If either of the two things is missing, the order would be liable to fall. While taking action on the ground under clause (v) of section 57 the Government has to be satisfied and has to record specific findings on two points, namely, (i) that the management has substantially, diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the college and (ii) the said act of (sic) management was to the detriment of the college. For taking action (sic) ground mentioned in clause (v), it is thus obligatory on the (sic) mention in the show cause notice the necessary facts and material (sic) relating to diversion, misapplication or misappropriation of (sic) the detriment of the college. Regarding charges Nos. For taking action (sic) ground mentioned in clause (v), it is thus obligatory on the (sic) mention in the show cause notice the necessary facts and material (sic) relating to diversion, misapplication or misappropriation of (sic) the detriment of the college. Regarding charges Nos. (i), (ii) (sic) and (vi) there are no allegations in the notice that the (sic) substantially diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the (sic) the detriment of the college. Only charge No. (vii) relate (sic) section 57; but nothing has been said about this charge by (sic) in the impugned order and in fact no finding has (sic) regarding the said charge. The Government itself has not (sic) raised controller on the basis of charge no. (vii). This (sic) liable to be treated as dropped by the Government. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is, as such, liable to be accepted. 8. It is true that section 57 does not expressly require the Government to give in the notice the facts or material particulars relating to diversion, misapplication or misappropriation to the detriment of the college by the management, but notice will be an empty formality and useless ritual unless the material particulars to that effect are contained in the notice. A person to whom the notice is issued cannot effectively submit his explanation unless be knows as to what are the particulars on the basis of which action is proposed to be taken against him. Sections 57 and 58 of the Act make one thing clear that the Government can take action for appointment of authorised controller only in accordance with the principles of natural justice. One of the principles of natural justice is that a person, who is called upon to show cause, knows the case regarding which he has to submit reply. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, that in the absence of express provision in the above sections the Government is not required to give necessary facts/material particulars in the notice, cannot be accepted. 9. The second submission also has force. The charges levelled in the show cause notice are absolutely vague excepting charges nos. (i) (vi) but they are irrelevant, not being co-related to any of the clauses of section 57. Even regarding those two charges allegations regarding misuse of the Jeep and illegalities in the withdrawal of certain amount from the computer fund are vague. The charges levelled in the show cause notice are absolutely vague excepting charges nos. (i) (vi) but they are irrelevant, not being co-related to any of the clauses of section 57. Even regarding those two charges allegations regarding misuse of the Jeep and illegalities in the withdrawal of certain amount from the computer fund are vague. If the notice contains vague charges, it is almost impossible for the person, who is called upon to show cause, to give effective reply and if any adverse order has been passed on the basis of such charges, it results in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. The Third submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners also deserves acceptance. Government in the impugned order has relied upon three reports, namely (i) report of the Vice Chancellor in connection with derecognition of the college, (ii) report of the Director of Education and (iii) report of the Assistant Registrar, Societies. There is neither any mention of these reports in the show cause notice nor were copied of these reports supplied to the Petitioners. The Petitioners, as such, had no opportunity to have their say against those reports If the Government bases its finding on any report or material regarding which the person concerned has not been given any opportunity of being heard, the Government order cannot be sustained, being violative of the principles of natural justice. In paragraphs 18, 20 & 22 of the counter affidavit of Sri R.N. Singh it has been stated that the Petitioners had knowledge of the aforesaid reports, which were also shown to them and as such, there is no prejudice caused to the Petitioners on account of non-disclosure of the reports in the show cause notice or non supply of the reports to them. Sri R.N. Singh, who has sworn the counter . affidavit, is the Principal of the college. He has not stated that the Petitioners were heard in person by the Government and further that he was present at the time when the Petitioners were heard. Unless a person is present at the time of hearing, he cannot state as to what transpired when the hearing was conducted. Even if a person has knowledge of any material or documents, it is not open to the Government to reply on the same unless it is disclosed to that person. Unless a person is present at the time of hearing, he cannot state as to what transpired when the hearing was conducted. Even if a person has knowledge of any material or documents, it is not open to the Government to reply on the same unless it is disclosed to that person. Mere knowledge of the documents or material sought to be relied upon by the Government will not be a ground for the Government not to disclose the same to the person, who has been called upon to show cause. In the absence of any such mention in the show cause notice, he cannot effectively reply about these document. On this account also the Government has passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. Like the show cause notice, many of the findings recorded by the Government are vague. That apart, the Government has recorded findings on many points, which were not disclosed to the Petitioners in the show cause notice for example, the findings of the Government on charge No. (i) regarding purchase of the Jeep with the funds taken as advance from two accounts, which was not adjusted and not showing of the Jeep in the stock register. Nothing of the kind was mentioned in the show cause notice. Such a finding is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. Similar is the case with charges No. (ii) in which while relying on the reports of the Assistant Registrar of Societies, a finding has been recorded to the effect that the land of the college, which was worth Rs. 10 lacks has been leased out for a sum of Rs. 1 lack and Rs. 208/- per year as lease rent. No such allegations were mentioned in the show cause notice and the only thing said under charge No. (ii) was that the land was sold at lower price. The finding on charge No. (ii) suffers from the same infirmity. Something can be said about the findings on charges Nos. (iv) and (v). As regards finding on charge No. (vi) is concerned, no reasons have been disclosed by the Government. Oily a conclusion has been drawn about it. For the above reasons also the Government order can not be sustained The last submission of the learned Counsel has got to be accepted. 12. (iv) and (v). As regards finding on charge No. (vi) is concerned, no reasons have been disclosed by the Government. Oily a conclusion has been drawn about it. For the above reasons also the Government order can not be sustained The last submission of the learned Counsel has got to be accepted. 12. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order passed by the Government dated 2-9-1992 is quashed. 13. As there are serious charges against the Petitioners, as are contained in the reports of the Vice-Chancellor, Director of Education and the Assistant Registrar, Societies and Firm as well as in the audit report, it is open to the Government to initiate action afresh for appointment, of authorised controller. The Government will also be free to take any other action as may be permissible under law, in case it is satisfied about the contents of the above reports.