Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-5), dated 5-5-2003 passed by respondent M. P. State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal, by which the petitioner who was elected Member Agriculturist of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Panna has been removed from the membership under Section 55 (1) of M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam), has filed this petition. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioner was duly elected as Member Agriculturist of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Panna in the year 2000. Because of certain allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice (Annexure P-2) on 29-1-2003. The petitioner in place of replying the aforesaid show-cause notice (Annexure P-2), filed an application (Annexure A-4) to respondent No. 1 for supply of copies of certain documents. It is not in dispute that Annexure A-4 was received by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 sent a reply to the aforesaid letter, but it is stated that the petitioner refused to accept the aforesaid letter and it was affixed on the house of the petitioner (this fact finds place in the order Annexure P-5 ). Thereafter, respondent No. 1 held an enquiry and thereafter the order (Annexure P-5) was passed. ( 3. ) THE learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that:- (i) That the petitioner was not afforded due opportunity of hearing by respondent No. 1 before passing order (Annexure P-5 ). (ii) In fact, Annexure A-4 was not replied by the respondent No. 1 and in support of this, no document has been filed by the respondents when the aforesaid order was affixed on the house of the petitioner. (iii) If it is assumed that the aforesaid reply was sent to the petitioner, even then the respondent No. 1 before holding the enquiry ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been informed in respect of date of hearing before commencement of enquiry in the case. (iv) That respondent No. 1 has not recorded any independent finding in the order (Annexure P-5) that he was satisfied with the misconduct alleged against the petitioner and in absence of this, the order under Section 55 (1) of the Act can not be passed. ( 4. (iv) That respondent No. 1 has not recorded any independent finding in the order (Annexure P-5) that he was satisfied with the misconduct alleged against the petitioner and in absence of this, the order under Section 55 (1) of the Act can not be passed. ( 4. ) IN reply to the aforesaid contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner can not assail the order on the aforesaid grounds. The order (Annexure P-5) was passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was duly served a show-cause notice, which was not replied by the petitioner and thereafter considering the resolution of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, respondent No. 1 has passed the order after affording due opportunity of hearing. The petitioners misconduct was found proved and he has been removed from the membership of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti under Section 55 (1) of the Ad-hiniyam. The satisfaction of respondent No. 1 is apparent from the perusal of order (Annexure P-5) in which no interference can be made by this Court. The misconduct of petitioner is serious one. He had beaten the Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and this act can not be dealt with lightly. Contending the aforesaid, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that this petition may be dismissed. ( 5. ) TO consider the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Section 55 (1) of the Act which reads as under:- " 55. Removal of Member, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Market Committee.-- (1) The Managing Director may on his own motion or on a resolution passed by a majority of two-third of the members constituting the market committee for the time being remove any member of the market committee for misconduct or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty and on such removal he shall not be re-elected or re-nominated as a member of the market committee for a period of six years from the date of such removal: Provided that no order of such removal shall be passed unless such member has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed. " ( 6. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was an elected Member (Agriculturist) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Panna. " ( 6. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was an elected Member (Agriculturist) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Panna. The power is vested with respondent No. 1 to remove member, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the marketing committee but the aforesaid order of removal has to be passed by respondent No. 1 after affording the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before passing such an order. The aforesaid opportunity must be efficacious opportunity and not a mere eye wash. It is not in dispute that the show-cause notice (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner before initiating the aforesaid proceedings. Petitioner before filing reply requested respondent No. 1 to furnish copies of certain documents which were mentioned in the show-cause notice as is apparent from Annexure P-4. So far as reply of Annexure P-4 is concerned, which is available in the record of respondent No. 2 that it was sent to the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to accept it and subsequently it was affixed on the house of the petitioner. This fact has been opposed by the petitioner vehemently. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has not explained why this document was not filed along with the return. Panchnama available in the file has not been filed along with the return. Respondents Withheld material document from the perusal of the Court. Petitioner was not afforded due opportunity to rebut the aforesaid documents. That respondent No. 1 had not informed that date of hearing to the petitioner when the enquiry was initiated against him. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that respondent No. 1 held some inquiry though nothing is available in the file produced by respondent No. 2. While certain Photostat copies in the record show that evidence was recorded by respondent No. 1. From the perusal of the order (Annexure P-5), also it appears that respondent No. 1 recorded certain statements of the witnesses (as is apparent from the perusal of last but one para of the order ). Nothing has been produced before me showing the fact that before recording the aforesaid statements the petitioner was informed about the aforesaid enquiry. From the perusal of the order (Annexure P-5), also it appears that respondent No. 1 recorded certain statements of the witnesses (as is apparent from the perusal of last but one para of the order ). Nothing has been produced before me showing the fact that before recording the aforesaid statements the petitioner was informed about the aforesaid enquiry. The most glaring fact in the case is that respondent No. 1 has not recorded his any independent findings in respect of the misconduct or negligence of the petitioner to perform his duties. To pass such an order against an elected person, it was necessary on the part of the respondent No. 1 to record such a finding. Recording such finding is an essential ingredient of the order. Until and unless the respondent No. 1 records his independent findings in respect of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, no order under Section 55 (1) of the Adhiniyam can be passed. From the perusal of Annexure P-5, it is apparent that respondent No. 1 has narrated facts of the case, but has not recorded any independent finding that respondent No. 1, from the material on record was satisfied about the misconduct of petitioner. In the circumstances, from the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was not afforded due opportunity of hearing and respondent No. 1 has not recorded his finding about the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this matter deserves to be remitted back to respondent No. 1 to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file reply of show-cause notice, thereafter to proceed in the case in accordance with law and to pass a final order. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-5) is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to respondent No. 1. The petitioner will file reply to the show-cause notice (Annexure P-4) within a period of 15 days from today to respondent No. 1. The necessary documents as stated in-Annexure P-4 have been supplied to the petitioner along with the return and no other documents are necessary for filing the reply by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. On receiving the reply, respondent No. 1 if finds it proper to hold an enquiry, he will be free to do so after notice to petitioner and thereafter will pass a final order in accordance with law. On receiving the reply, respondent No. 1 if finds it proper to hold an enquiry, he will be free to do so after notice to petitioner and thereafter will pass a final order in accordance with law. No order as to costs.