JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to a show-cause notice dated 27.9.2017 issued to the petitioner. While disagreeing with the report of the inquiry officer, which exonerates the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 has issued the said show-cause notice. 3. The sole submission raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that the said show-cause notice, which runs in six pages, after referring to the facts of the case, concludes “therefore the charges framed against aforesaid Shri Shitla Prasad Gupta are fully proved.” The said conclusion as per him, does not leave any scope to show-cause, as the decision is already taken by the authority. Now the impugned notice is no more a show-cause notice but amounts to a final order. 4. Learned Additional Solicitor General raises preliminary objection that petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy to approach under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Since, there are no disputed questions of fact involved in the case, hence, the preliminary objections raised by learned Additional Solicitor General, of there being alternative remedy, is rejected. 5. Since counsel for petitioner only relies upon the impugned order, hence, the requirement of counter-affidavit is also dispensed with. The Apex Court in case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 , in paragraph 27 held that : “27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show-cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony.” Similarly in case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, (2001) 1 SCC 182 , where in paragraph 25 and 35 the Court held : “25. Upon consideration of the language in the show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete. 35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom—in the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained.” 6. The law, settled by the Apex Court in aforesaid judgment, is clear that while issuing a show-cause notice, the authority can only give findings of a prima facie case against the petitioner. It cannot confront him with definite conclusion and finding of his alleged guilt. Any such definite conclusion would render the entire proceedings bad, on the ground of real danger of bias. In the present case also the show-cause notice, as quoted above, gives definite conclusion of alleged guilt of petitioner. The same, thus, no more remains to be a show-cause notice in accordance with law. 7. The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.9.2017 being directly in teeth of aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and cannot stand. 8. Hence, impugned show-cause notice/order dated 27.9.2017 is set aside and writ petition is allowed.