JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The matter was taken up in post lunch session. 2. The categorical contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order has been passed in a pre-determined and hasty manner as it would go to show that no fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the exact nature of allegation and charge levelled against the petitioner, is also not being made known to the petitioner so as to what is the reason for which the impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed. 3. Learned State Counsel prayed that the matter may be taken up in post lunch session enabling him to seek instruction. 4. When the matter is taken up in post lunch session, the learned State counsel produces an order of a show-cause notice that was issued on 13.01.2022 by the State-authorities who has passed the impugned order Annexure P/1 and there was yet another enquiry report produced by the respondents. 5. The plain perusal of the contents of show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 would clearly reflect that the only allegation against the petitioner is that on an inspection being made at the petitioner-establishment on 12.01.2022, it was found that the menu fixed for mid day meal was not being followed so also the quality of the food supplied was not being maintained. For ready reference the contents of the impugned show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 has produced by the State Counsel, is reproduced here-in-under:- ^^mijksDr fOk"k;kUrXkZr ys[k gS fd xzkfe.kks }kjk izkIr f'kdk;r ,oa ladqy leUod ferxkbZ ds tk¡p izfrosnu fnukad 12-01-2022 ds voyksdu i'pkr~ ;g Li"V gS fd vkids }kjk e/;kUg Hkkstu ;kstuk dk lapkyu ehuw o xq.kRrka;qDr ugh fd;k tk jgk gSA vkids }kjk mDr EkgRroiw.kZ dk;Z dks xEHkhjrk ls ugh fd;k tkuk vkids drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh dks n'kkZRkk gSA vr% vki bl laoa/k esa vki viuk Li"Vhdj.k nks fnol esa v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj nsuk lqfu'pr djsaA ;fn vkids }kjk dksbZ tokc ughaa fn;k tkrk gS rks dqN ugha dguk eku dj lapkyu dk;Z ls i`Fkd djus gsrq mPp dk;kZy; dks izLrkfor fd;k tkosxkA** 6. The plain reading of the aforesaid show-cause notice would clearly give an indication that the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner is too vague an allegation, particularly when the action taken by the respondents is that of the cancellation of the contract given to the petitioner for supply of mid day meal at the Government Primary School Mitgai, Block Ramchandrapur Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj. 7. Under the normal circumstance, when an inspection is conducted or a surprise visit is made at the particular establishment to check the quality and the specification of the food being provided, the specific details of deficiencies and lacuna detected must be recorded. Copy of the inspection note should be provided to the concerned authorities taking care of establishment where inspection has been done. 8. In all fairness, the explanation ought to have been called upon from the concerned persons in-respect-of of those specific lacuna and shortcomings. In the instant case, there does not seem to be any such specific averment or allegation levelled against the petitioner except for the vague terminology of the menu and quality of the food not being adhered. There is no detail further available as regards the contents of the show-cause notice and the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice is concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this is a case where the show-cause notice in-fact was not served upon the petitioner whereas the State Counsel refers to an ambiguous endorsement that the bottom of the said page which shows that there was a refusal by the petitioner in accepting the show-cause notice. 10. All said and done, taking into consideration the contents of the enquiry report dated 12.01.2022 and the contents of the show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 clearly reflect that the enquiry report as also the show-cause notice are bereft of details in-respect-of the specific shortcomings, lacuna and deficiencies that were detected by the respondents during the course of the inspection that was held on 12.01.2022. In the absence of any such details both in the enquiry report as also in the show-cause notice, the petitioner would not have been in a position to effectively give a reply to the show-cause notice or could have made any submission in rebuttal by the respondents, which otherwise is minimum that is required for compliance of the principle of natural justice. A person should know as to the shortcomings or the error committed by him for which he is being punished. The vague allegation cannot be presumed as compliance of an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner should have got a fair and reasonable knowledge of what is going on against him or what is that was detected by the respondent-authorities in the course of inspection which has led to the action of cancellation of work order. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 02.02.2022 is therefore not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is hereby set aside/quashed and the matter stands remitted back to the respondent-authorities from the stage of the enquiry report dated 12.01.2022. The respondents are expected to issue a specific show-cause notice, if at all, if they intend to proceed against the petitioner showing the specific details of the shortcomings and lacuna on the part of the petitioner and thereupon provide the petitioner a reasonable period of time to respond to show-cause notice only then proceed in accordance with law and pass a fresh order, if all, if need so arises. 12. The present petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of in-terms of the directions/observations.