SANJAY KAROL, CJ.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:— (1) for quashing of the disempanelment order dated 31.03.2020 issued under the signature of Joint Director, Directorate Resettlement Zone (Central), Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Central Command, Lucknow whereby and where under petitioner security agency has been disempanelled under the provisions of para 26 of Ministry of defence office memorandum for violation of paras 14(a) and 16 of MoD OM No. 28(3)/lD (Res-I) dated 09.07.2012 and it has further been directed to submit the DGR Empanelement Certificate in original to this Office at the earliest. The aforesaid order has been passed without appreciating the facts and the relevant law involved in the matter like not giving show cause notice to some of the charges leveled against petitioner agency as well as the disempanellement has been ordered by the authority, inferior to the authority who empanelled him. At this stage it would be more pertinent to mention here that order of the disempanellement has been passed, by the officer, who was transferred and was relieved on same day, i.e., on the date of his relieving he passed the order with an intention to harass the petitioner. (2) Petitioner further prays for a direction upon the concerned respondent to restore the empanelment of the petitioner agency with DGR Security Agency scheme and for any other relief/reliefs, for which this Hon’ble Court may find fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order impugned herein dated 31st March, 2020 suffers from the vice of not assigning any reason, sufficient enough for the authority to have formed its opinion, disempanelling the petitioner for the purposes of providing security in terms of Empanelment Certificate dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure P/2). 3. The impugned order dated 31st March, 2020, even though runs into three pages, refers to certain office orders alleged to have been violated in terms thereof, breached by the petitioner but which part of the office order stands breached cannot be deciphered from the impugned order passed whereby the petitioner’s certificate of empanelment stands cancelled inasmuch as, the petitioner stands disempanelled. 4. 4. Shri Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that there is reference of certain alleged malpractices or breach of the terms of the condition of empanelment which have also been accounted for by the authorities while passing the impugned order. 5. Well on this issue, we do not express any opinion but on the first count, referred to earlier, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31st March, 2020 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner stands disempanelled, with a direction to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We direct the petitioner to make himself available in the office of respondent no.4, namely, the Principal Director (Employment) Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, West Block IV, R K Puram, New Delhi on 06.12.2021 and also place additional materials in support of his contentions, refuting the charges indicated in the show cause notice dated 21st December, 2019 (Annexure P/6). We expect the appropriate authority to pass a reasoned order assigning reasons within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. 6. Liberty reserved to the writ petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law. 7. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues of facts and law are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.