JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.10.2017. A pure question of law has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to the effect that can a suspension order which had been passed in violation of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 be sustained? Since the learned Standing counsel had to reply to this precise question of law as had been raised by the petitioner, he had agreed that the case may be decided without a counter-affidavit. 3. Learned counsel of the petitioner has stated that even though as per the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 , it has been held that no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the delinquent fair price shop dealer before an order of suspension was passed, but nevertheless it could not have been passed in violation of the provisions of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and for this purpose he read out the paragraphs No. 2, 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. For a correct appreciation of the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it shall be essential that the relevant portions of the Government Order are reproduced here as under: ^^2- mDr i`"BHkwfe esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fuEu izfØ;k dk ikyu fd;k tk;A 1- mfpr nj dh nqdku dk fuyEcu ek= fdlh O;fDr dh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij ugha fd;k tk;A ;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ds fo:) fdlh Jksr ls f'kdk;r izkIr gksrh gS rks igys mldh izkjfEHkd tkap djk;h tk;A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa nqdkunkj ds fo:) ,slh xaEHkhj vfu;ferrk,a izFke n`"V~;k fl) gks jgh gks ftuds vk/kkj ij nqdkunkj dh nqdku fujLr gksus dh lEHkkouk gks rHkh nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk; vkSj lkFk gh lkFk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk; fd mldh nqdku D;ksa u fujLr dj nh tk;A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;k tk; fd vfu;ferrk bruh xaHkhj ugha gS fd nqdku ds fujLrhdj.k dh lEHkkouk gks rks dsoy dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;A fuyEcu vkns'k@dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ,d **Lihfdax vkMZj** gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa izkjfEHkd tkap eas ik;h x;h mu lHkh vfu;ferrkvksa dk fooj.k gksuk pkfg, ftudk mRrj nqdkunkj ls visf{kr gksA ¼2½ ¼d½ [kk| foHkkx ds vfèkdkfj;ksa@ftyk iz'kklu ds vfèkdkfj;ksa@vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkdfLed fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ;fn ik;k tkrk gS fd nqdkunkj }kjk dksbZ xEHkhj vfu;ferrk dh x;h gS rks Hkh nqdku ds fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼[k½ [kk| foHkkx fd vf/kdkfj;ksa@ftyk iz'kklu ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@vU; izkf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk ;fn nqdkunkj dksbZ vfu;fer dk;Z] forj.k esa xM+cM+h ;k vuqlwfpr oLrqvksa dh dkykcktkjh djrs gq, idM+k tkrk gS rks Hkh fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gSA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nqdku ds fuyEcu dh fLFkfr esa Hkh ^^Lihfdax vkMZj** ls fuyEcu vkns'k tkjh fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa lHkh vfu;ferrkvksa dk mYys[k gksxk RkFkk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk fd D;ksa u mldh nqdku fujLr dj nh tk,A 4- fuyfEcr dh x;h nqdkuksa ds fo:) tkap dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa vfuok;Z :i ls iwjh dh tk;sxh rFkk tkap esa lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k tk;sxkA lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og tkap esa viuk iwjk lg;ksx ns rkfd tkap dk dk;Z tYnh ls tYnh iwjk fd;k tk lds rFkk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa xq.knks"k ds vkèkkj ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsA ;fn nqdkunkj }kjk tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fn;k tk jgk gks vkSj tkap esa fcyEc djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gks rks nqdkunkj dks bl vk'k; dk Hkh uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk vkSj viuk i{k j[kus dk vfUre volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA 5- tkap dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa iw.kZ djds fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esaa vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk vkSj xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij ,d **Lihfdax vkMZj** tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA bl vkns'k esa ;g Li"V mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k vkSj mls lquk x;kA ;fn nqdkunkj us tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;k gks vkSj lquokbZ ds volj dk tku cw>dj mi;ksx u fd;k gks rks vfUre vkns'k esa bl ckr dk Hkh iwjk mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd nqdkunkj dks volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk vfUre uksfVl fn;k x;k ijUrq mlus tkucw> dj volj dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k vkSj tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;kA** 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is a provision in a Government Order then it should be strictly adhered to and no deviation can be made. The Government Order in this case, he submits, very specifically states that when a show-cause notice alongwith an order of suspension was issued then the fair price shop dealer had to be informed that upon the completion of the enquiry there was a possibility that his shop would be cancelled. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Shyam Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(8) ADJ 42 (DB) and submitted that the petitioner had to be informed about the proposed punishment which could be imposed on him upon the conclusion of the enquiry, if the same would go against him. He submitted that the delinquent must be in the know of the fact as to what were the allegations and as to what were the punishments in the event the enquiry went against him. 5. To bolster his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 and specifically read out paragraph 16 of the judgement which is being reproduced here as under : “Thus on a consideration of the entire material placed before us we do not have any doubt that the New Delhi Municipal Committee was never put on notice of any action proposed to be taken under Sec. 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act and no opportunity was given to the Municipal Committee to explain any fact or circumstance on the basis (of which) that action was proposed. If there was any correspondence between the New Delhi Municipal Committee and any other authority about the subject-matter of any of the allegations, if information was given and gathered it was for entirely different purposes. In our view, the requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose. We do not suggest that the opportunity need be a ‘double opportunity’ that is, one opportunity on the factual allegations and another on the proposed penalty. We do not suggest that the opportunity need be a ‘double opportunity’ that is, one opportunity on the factual allegations and another on the proposed penalty. Both may be rolled into one. But the person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. If that is made known the requirements are met. We disagree with the finding of the High Court that the Committee had the opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the order of supersession.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it mattered little that the petitioner and the respondents were always in the know of the fact that normally only one punishment follows from an enquiry which is initiated under the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. He states that still the actual punishment which had to be imposed had to be conveyed to the delinquent for two reasons: (I) The requirement of the Government Order was that the proposed punishment had to be conveyed to the petitioner and; (II) If the petitioner is informed about the punishment which he would be getting then he takes the allegations seriously and tries to confront them with due diligence. A delinquent who is not in the know of the proposed punishment might not take the proceedings seriously. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there have been instances when after the enquiry the shop keepers are let off with either only a fine or a warning and, therefore, he submits it was essential that the proposed punishment ought to be always informed. 8. Learned counsel for the gaon sabha and the learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that since a draft agreement is signed before the licence to run Fair Price Shop is granted, the petitioner always was in the know of the fact that in the event he violates any of the cluases of the agreement then he had to face the music and that his licence would be terminated. 9. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that if there is only one punishment which follows the disciplinary enquiry then the same might not be informed to the delinquent compulsarily. 10. 9. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that if there is only one punishment which follows the disciplinary enquiry then the same might not be informed to the delinquent compulsarily. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that when the Government Order clearly stipulates that the delinquent had to be informed about the proposed punishment then there is no other option with the Licencing Authority but to inform about the same. This is not only because the Government Order stipulates it that way but the principles of natural justice would also be violated if the information is withheld. Every show-cause should inform the delinquent as to what the proposed punishment would be if the enquiry went against him. This does not only convey the seriousness of the proceedings which are initiated but also allows the petitioner to know as to what the proposed punishment would be against him. This is what has also been stated in the Supreme Court decision of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 . The Rule of strict adherence would also be infringed, if the stipulation of the Government Order is violated. 11. Under such circumstances, the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.