Judgment Sanjay Yadav,J. ( 1. ) With consent the matter is heard finally. ( 2. ) Correctness of the show cause notice dated 24-3-1999 is being questioned in this petition. By said show cause notice the petitioner is called upon as to why an action under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1966)be not taken and the petitioner be removed from service because the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rendered invalid. ( 3. ) The relevant facts giving rise for the issuance of said notice are that the petitioner by order dated 9-11-1982 was appointed as Assistant Tractor Driver on contingency on a fixed pay of Rs.75 in grade Rs.75-140 on temporary basis. Thereafter by order dated 11-4-1984 he was promoted as Assistant Grade III in grade Rs.445-635 and by order dated 16-1-1991 he was promoted as Assistant Grade II in grade Rs.95-1530. The services of the petitioner thereafter were regularized by order dated 22-3-1997 with effect from 10-11-1984. ( 4. ) That in the year 1988,wife of petitioners brother Hukum Singh; the said Hukum Singh was in the employment of respondent as tractor driver and died in harness, approached the authorities with a plea that the consent which she gave in favour of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground be treated as withdrawn and she be given the appointment in lieu of the death of her husband. The said representation came to be rejected on 4-7-1988 on the ground that the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground can be given only to one person in a family. ( 5. ) Smt.Gopi Bai,widow of late Hukum Singh, thereafter approached the Labour Court by way of application under the M. P. Industrial Relations Act. The application was allowed on 6-1-1990, whereby, the respondent/authority was directed to appoint her on compassionate ground and gave them the liberty to deal with the petitioner. ( 6. ) This order,however,was set aside in appeal preferred by the respondents. The matter thereafter travelled before this Court in W. P. No. 1744/91 wherein without dealing with the petition on merit disposed if of on the basis of the statement by respondent that in the interregnum period i.e. from the date of order dated 6-1-1990 and filing of the petition, the said Smt. Gopi Bai was appointed. The matter thereafter travelled before this Court in W. P. No. 1744/91 wherein without dealing with the petition on merit disposed if of on the basis of the statement by respondent that in the interregnum period i.e. from the date of order dated 6-1-1990 and filing of the petition, the said Smt. Gopi Bai was appointed. This order though lead to the disposal of writ petition but the order by Labour Court which was set aside by Appellate Court was not revived. ( 7. ) The respondent however taking cue from the order of labour Court issued the impugned show cause notice. ( 8. ) Questioning the said order it is urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that, the appointment of the petitioner nowhere disclosed that he was appointed on compassionate ground. It is contended that since the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate ground, the respondents wrongly addressed themselves to facts not in existence and issued the show cause notice. It is further contended that the petitioner being appointed by the Board of the Authority, the Chief Executive Officer had no authority under law to have taken action against the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that the respondents were not justified in placing reliance on the order of Labour Court which was not in existence: The learned counsel further urged that since there was no misconduct by the petitioner, he could not be subjected to the proceedings under the Rules of 1966. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed : AIR 1979 SC1022 and Inspector PremChand v. Govt,of NCT of Delhi :(2007) 4 SCC566 for the proposition that there was no act of misrepresentation as would tantamount to misconduct. And for the proposition that the exercise of administrative power shall stand vitiated if there is manifest error of record, on the judgment rendered in M. P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M. P.:(2004) 8 SCC788. ( 9. ) The respondents on their turn raises the preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition on two counts, viz., that the petition is against a show cause notice and that the multiple relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be agitated in the writ petition. ( 9. ) The respondents on their turn raises the preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition on two counts, viz., that the petition is against a show cause notice and that the multiple relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be agitated in the writ petition. On merit, it is urged that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of his brother Hukum Singh, who died in harness and the willingness expressed by his widow. It is contended that subsequently the widow of Hukum Singh withdrew the concession granted by her and since only one member could be appointed on compassionate ground, the action of withdrawing the appointment of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. ( 10. ) Considered the rival submissions. ( 11. ) Objection regarding multiple relief being sought in the petition, it is observed from the relief sought that while questioning the show cause notice the petitioner also seeks direction to respondents to release the annual increments of the petitioner after 1990 and fix the pay at appropriate stage of the time scale of pay. Definitely the petitioner is aggrieved of non releasing of increment and non fixation of pay. The said grievance, as is evident from the pleading, preexisted when the petitioner was subjected to a show cause notice. The petitioner has a right to seek redressal of his grievance and unless the law prohibits, the petitioner cannot be deprived to seek remedy in a writ petition, the objection of the respondents regarding multiple relief is therefore rejected. ( 12. ) Now coming to objection that petition against show cause notice is not maintainable, in Executive Engineer Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others :(1996) 1 SCC327 their lordships were please to observe that: "10. We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the writ petition against a show-cause notice issued by a competent statutory authority. It should be borne in mind that there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext. It should be borne in mind that there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext. P-4 notice is ex facie a"nullity" or totally "without jurisdiction" in the traditional sense of that expression - that is to say, that even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on the face of it and without anything more, is totally unauthorised. In such a case, for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternative remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the even of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." ( 13. ) In Special Director and another v. Ghulam Ghouse and another : AIR 2004 SC1467 it was held by their lordships that: "5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially 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 accorded to the writ petition even at the threshold by the interim protection granted." ( 14. ) Thus when a show cause notice is ex-facie a "nullity" or totally "without jurisdiction" then it can be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 15. ) In the case at hand under the Rules, viz., Madhya Pradesh Development authority Services (Officers and Servants) Recruitment Rules, 1987, "appointing authority" of member belonging to authority service is as under Rule 8 which stipulates: "8. Appointing Authority(1)All appointments to Authority Services, Class I and Class II shall be made by the State Government. (2) all appointments to the Authority Services, Class III and Class IV shall be made by the Chairman with prior approval of the Board." ( 16. ) Rules 2 (b)of the Rules defines the appointing authority:-"(b)"Appointing authority" means:- (i) The authority empowered to make appointments to the service of which the authority servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the service in which the authority servant is for the time being includes; or (ii) The authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the authority servant for the time being holds; or (iii) The authority which appointed the authority servant to such service, grade or post, as the case may be; or (iv) Where the authority servant having been permanent member of any other service or having subsequently held any other permanent post, has been in continuous employment of the authority, the authority which appointed him to that service to any grade in the service or to that post, whichever authority is the higher authority." ( 17. ) Under Rule 53 of the Rules the disciplinary action can be initiated by the appointing authority. ) Under Rule 53 of the Rules the disciplinary action can be initiated by the appointing authority. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner questions the authority of the Chief Executive Officer to take any disciplinary action, therefore, since jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer is being questioned, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and cannot be dismissed in limine. The objection to that effect raised by respondent is overruled. ( 18. ) Regarding merit, admittedly the petitioner, a member of Development authority Service under rule 2 (f)of the Rules of 1987,and as observed hereabove under rule 8 read with rule 53 of the Rules of 1987 the Chief Executive Officer is nowhere shown to be a disciplinary authority of the class of employee as the petitioner is nor it is shown that there is delegation of power in favour of the Chief Executive Officer as would empower him to issue show cause notice and to take disciplinary action. The action initiated by the Chief Executive Officer being without authority deserves to be quashed. ( 19. ) Even otherwise it is not the case of respondent that the petitioner misrepresented or played fraud in obtaining the appointment. Though the appointment letter dated 9-11-1982 nowhere indicates that the petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground and even if it is taken to be an appointment on compassionate ground then also the same cannot be declared a nullity at the instance of a person who changes her mind and withdraws the concession. The appointment in favour of the petitioner being not obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, creates vested right in favour of such appointee and cannot be taken away unless and otherwise in accordance with law. ( 20. ) Having thus considered, the show cause notice dated 24-3-1999 deserves to be and is hereby quashed. ( 21. ) Regarding claim for increment and proper fixation of pay, the petitioner is at liberty to represent to respondent who shall pass reasoned order on such representation and if the petitioner is found entitled, his pay be fixed accordingly The petition is allowed to the extent above. However, in the circumstances no costs. Petition allowed.