ORDER : 1. Petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the name of petitioner is removed from Register of Notaries maintained under Section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”). 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on 01.04.1996 by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. He was appointed as a Notary on 30.11.2010 and his place of practice is throughout Tahsil Konta, District – Sukma. The Certificate of Notary was issued for a period of five years, which was renewed on 15.12.2015. Petitioner again submitted an application for renewal of Certificate of Notary before the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 along with requisite fees. Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 01.12.2021 to respondent No.3 stating that perusal of register maintained by petitioner it revealed that entry at Sr. No.76, 82, 97, 99, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 138, 139 and 149 of the register, thumb impression have not been attested and called reply from the petitioner. In turn respondent No.3 issued letter/memo on 14.02.2022 to which petitioner submitted reply accepting the mistake pleading that it is a first mistake and offered apology and requested for renewal of the Notary Certificate and thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 02.06.2022 is issued. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is passed in contravention of provisions under Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 and Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1956”). No inquiry was conducted as envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that authorities have only considered that thumb impression of the relevant entries as mentioned above was not attested but have not taken into consideration the period in which the entry was made i.e. period of Covid-19 pandemic. Petitioner has fairly admitted the mistake committed by him and has also offered his apology in the return/reply submitted. Petitioner has fairly admitted the mistake committed by him and has also offered his apology in the return/reply submitted. He also contended that as proceedings of enquiry is initiated suo motu under Rule 13 (4A), the appropriate Government ought to have sent a statement specifying the charge or charges along with oral and documentary evidence relied upon in support of the charge or charges, which was not complied with and therefore, the petitioner was deprived with his right to defend as provided under Sub-rule 9 of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956. 4. Learned counsel for State opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that while considering the application for renewal along with supported documents it revealed that petitioner has committed misconduct, therefore, a letter was issued to respondent No.3 mentioning as to why not the name of petitioner be removed from the Notary Register on account of shortcomings found in the register maintained by petitioner and in turn respondent No.3 has asked for explanation from petitioner, in which petitioner admitted that thumb impression was not attested in the register which is a first mistake and has tendered his apology. After receipt of reply submitted by petitioner, respondent No.3 forwarded it to respondent No.1. Thereafter, the order (Annexure P-1) is passed, which is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that some mistake was committed in not attesting the thump impression as mentioned in the aforementioned entries of register and petitioner tendered his apology and the order Annexure P-1 is passed in contravention of provision under Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1956. 7. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I find it appropriate to have a glance to the relevant provisions of the Act of 1952 and also the Rules of 1956. 8. Section 3 of the Act of 1952 deals with power to appoint Notaries under which Central Government, for the whole or any part of India, and any State Government, for the whole or any part of the State, may appoint as Notaries any legal practitioners or other persons who possess such qualifications as may be prescribed. 8. Section 3 of the Act of 1952 deals with power to appoint Notaries under which Central Government, for the whole or any part of India, and any State Government, for the whole or any part of the State, may appoint as Notaries any legal practitioners or other persons who possess such qualifications as may be prescribed. Section 4 talks of Registers which is to be maintained by Central Government and every State Government in the form as may be prescribed and the names of Notaries appointed by that Government and entitled to practice as such under the Act of 1952 is to be entered. Section 5 talks of entry of names in the Register and issue or renewal of certificates of practice. Section 5 (2) talks of renewal of certificate of Notary for a period of five years at a time by the Government. Section 9 talks of bar of practice without certificate and Section 10 deals with removal of names from Register. Section 10 is relevant in the facts of the case and therefore, it is extracted herein below for ready reference :- “10. Removal of names from Register.—The Government appointing any notary may, by order, remove from the Register maintained by it under section 4 the name, of the notary if he— (a) makes a request to that effect; or (b) has not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by him; or (c) is an undischarged insolvent; or (d) has been found, upon inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct as, in the opinion of the Government, renders him unfit to practise as a notary; [or] [(e) is convicted by any court for an offence involving moral turpitude; or] [(f) does not get his certificate of practice renewed.]” 9. Perusal of Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 in clear terms mentions that Government appointing any Notary may, by order, remove from the Register maintained by it if he has been found to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct upon inquiry in the prescribed manner. 10. In exercise of powers conferred in Section 15 of the Act of 1952, the Rules of 1956 has been framed. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1956 talks of qualification for appointment as a Notary. Rule 4 prescribes application for appointment as a Notary. 10. In exercise of powers conferred in Section 15 of the Act of 1952, the Rules of 1956 has been framed. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1956 talks of qualification for appointment as a Notary. Rule 4 prescribes application for appointment as a Notary. Rule 7 talks of recommendation of the competent authority after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections, if any, received. Rule 8 provides for appointment of a Notary. Rule 13 talks of an inquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct of a Notary. Rule 13, which is relevant in the facts of the case is extracted below for ready reference :- “13. Inquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct of a notary. [(1) An inquiry into the misconduct of a notary may be initiated either suo motu by the appropriate Government or on a complaint received in Form XIII.]. (2) Every such complaint shall contain the following particulars, namely:— (a) the acts and omissions which, if proved, would render the person complained against unfit to be a notary; (b) the oral or documentary evidence relied upon in support of the allegations made in the complaint. (3) The appropriate Government shall return a complaint which is not in the proper Form or which does not contain the aforesaid, particulars to the complainant for representation after compliance with such objections and within such times as the appropriate Government may specify: Provided that if the subject-matter in a complaint is, in the opinion of the said Government substantially the same as or covered by, any previous complaint and if there is no additional ground, the said Government shall file the said complaint without any further action and inform the complainant accordingly. (4) Within sixty days ordinarily of the receipt of complaint, the appropriate Government shall send a copy thereof to the notary at his address as entered in the Register of Notaries. (4) Within sixty days ordinarily of the receipt of complaint, the appropriate Government shall send a copy thereof to the notary at his address as entered in the Register of Notaries. [(4A) Where an inquiry is initiated, suo motu by the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government shall send to the notary a statement specifying the charge or charges against him, together with particulars of the oral or documentary evidence relied upon in support of such charge or charges.] (5) [A notary against whom an inquiry has been initiated may, within fourteen days of the service on him of a copy of the complaint under sub-rule (4) or of the statement of the charges under sub-rule (4A) as the case may be,] or within such time as may be extended by the appropriate Government, forward to that Government a written statement in his defence verified in the same manner as a pleading, in a civil court. (6) If on a perusal of [the written statement,] if any, of the notary concerned and other relevant documents and papers, the appropriate Government consider that there is a prima facie case against such notary, the appropriate Government shall cause an inquiry to be made in the matter by the competent authority. If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case against the notary concerned, [the complaint or charge shall be filed] and the complainant and the notary concerned shall be informed accordingly. [(7) Every notice issued to a notary under this rule shall be sent to him by registered post. If any such notice is returned unserved, with an endorsement indicating that the addressee has refused to accept the notice or the notice is not returned unserved within a period of thirty days from the date of its despatch, the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served upon the notary.] (8) It shall be the duty of the appropriate Government to place before the competent authority all facts brought to its knowledge which are relevant for the purpose of an inquiry by the competent authority. (9) A notary who is proceeded against shall have, right to defend himself before the competent Authority either in person or through a legal practitioner or any other notary. (9) A notary who is proceeded against shall have, right to defend himself before the competent Authority either in person or through a legal practitioner or any other notary. (10) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the competent authority shall have the power to regulate his procedure relating to the inquiry in such manner as he considers necessary and during the course of inquiry, may examine witnesses and receive, any other oral or documentary evidence. (11) The competent authority shall submit his report to the Government. entrusting him with the inquiry. (12) (a) The appropriate Government shall consider the report of the competent authority, and if in its opinion a further inquiry is necessary, may cause such further inquiry to be made and a further report submitted by the competent authority. (b) If after considering the report of the competent authority, the appropriate Government is of the opinion that action should be taken against the notary the appropriate Government may make an order- (i) cancelling the certificate of practice and perpetually debarring: the notary from practice; or (ii) suspending him from practice for a specified period; or (iii) letting him off with a warning, according to the nature and gravity of the misconduct of the notary proved. (13) Notification of removal—The removal of the name of any notary from the Register of Notaries from practice, as the case may be, shall be notified in Official Gazette and shall also be communicated in writing to the notary concerned.]” 11. Perusal of aforementioned rules provided that if the inquiry is under Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956, appropriate Government mandatorily has to send to the Notary a statement specifying the charge or charges against him along with oral or documentary evidence relied upon in support of charge or charges and it is the Notary who has to submit the written statement on his defence to the charges under Sub-rule (4A) or to the complaint under Sub-rule 4 within specified time and Sub-rule 6 provides that if the appropriate Government coming upon perusal of written statement and the charges that there is prima-facie case against such Notary, then the appropriate Government shall cause an inquiry to be made in the matter by the competent authority and the information is to be sent to the concerned Notary accordingly. Use of word ‘shall’ in Sub-rule (4A) of Rules 13 of Rules of 1956 makes the procedure to be followed as provided therein mandatory. Sub-rule 8 cast duty upon the appropriate Government to place before the competent authority all the facts brought to its knowledge for the purpose of an inquiry by the competent authority. 12. Perusal of the documents available in record would show that appropriate Government forwarded a letter in the form of show cause notice to respondent No.3 and not to petitioner. In turn respondent No.3 issued memo to petitioner wherein it is not mentioned as to action proposed to be taken against him. In view of above, there was no notice to petitioner in terms of Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956. Inquiry is to be conducted by the competent authority which in the facts of the case is respondent No.3 and that too only after the stage as provided under Sub-rule 6 of Rule 13. The inquiry in the facts of the case is necessary when action to be taken against Notary on the report provides three different actions first cancelling the certificate of practice and perpetually debarring the Notary from practice, second suspending him from practice for a specific period, and third letting him off with a warning, according to the nature and gravity of the misconduct of the notary proved. From perusal of the aforementioned actions to be taken against the Notary as provided under Sub-rule 12 (b) of Rule 13, it is apparent that it is the gravity of misconduct which is to be recorded before taking any one of the action as provided under Sub-rule 13 (12) (b) (i) (ii) & (iii) of the Rules of 1956. 13. Learned State counsel along with reply has not placed on record any proceeding in support of reply. Considering the documents available on record, the provision under the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1956 it is clearly appearing that provision of inquiry under Rule 13 is ought to have complied with. Though inquiry was initiated under Sub-rule (4A) of the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956, however, the appropriate Government has not forwarded the statement specifying the charge or charges against him together with particulars of oral or documentary evidence to the petitioner. Though inquiry was initiated under Sub-rule (4A) of the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956, however, the appropriate Government has not forwarded the statement specifying the charge or charges against him together with particulars of oral or documentary evidence to the petitioner. As per Sub-rule (4A) it is the appropriate Government who has to send the statement specifying the charges to the Notary, however, no documents is placed before this Court to show that appropriate Government has sent statement specifying the charges against petitioner asking him to submit written statement in his defence. The inquiry as envisaged under Rule 13 of Rules 1956 is not conducted and therefore, in the opinion of this Court without there being any report by the competent authority after inquiry as provided under Rule 13, there was no material before the appropriate Government to apply his mind as to what action out of three mentioned under Rule 13 (12) (b) is required to be taken and it appears that the action of removal of name of petitioner from Register is taken in a mechanical manner without weighing the gravity of the misconduct. No proceeding is placed before this Court showing application of mind recording reasons and weighing the gravity of the misconduct to arrive at a conclusion that no other action is required except cancellation of certificate of practice and perpetually debarring Notary from practice. 14. According to Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952, misconduct can be of two kinds. Some misconduct may amount to professional misconduct. There may be misconduct of another kind. Such misconduct may not amount to professional misconduct. It is clearly implied in the plan of Section 10 of the Act that every irregularity or negligence on the part of a Notary would not amount to professional misconduct. Profession misconduct suggests dishonesty or some conduct involving moral turpitude and therefore, to arrive at such conclusion that petitioner has committed professional misconduct, inquiry as envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956 was mandatory. Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in case of State Govt. of U.P. Vs. Kashi Prasad Saksen, reported in AIR 1969 ALLAHABAD 363 has observed thus :- “7. When enquiry was resumed by the State Government against Kashi Prasad Saxena as a result of the proceeding in the previous writ petition, the notice dated 3-3-1967 was issued to the notary. of U.P. Vs. Kashi Prasad Saksen, reported in AIR 1969 ALLAHABAD 363 has observed thus :- “7. When enquiry was resumed by the State Government against Kashi Prasad Saxena as a result of the proceeding in the previous writ petition, the notice dated 3-3-1967 was issued to the notary. Annexure 7 to the writ petition is a copy of the notice, dated 3-3-1967. That notice ran thus :-- "……... I am directed to send herewith a copy of the report of the Competent Authority . .... . . and you are required to submit your explanation in your defence within fourteen days of the receipt of this letter to the Secretary to the Government of U.P., Judicial (A-I) Department …….." There was no indication in Annexure 7 that the three charges levelled against Kashi Prasad Saxena might amount to professional misconduct. Nor was there any indication in Annexure 7 that such professional misconduct might render the notary unfit to practise as such. 8. The decision of the Division Bench in the previous writ proceeding is reported in Kashi Prasad v. State, AIR 1967 All 173 . The learned Judges observed on page 180 thus:-- "It does not appear that the State Government ever addressed itself to question as to whether or not on the facts proved in the case the petitioner-appellant could be adjudged guilty of professional misconduct as distinct from negligence or mere lapse and whether the professional misconduct, if any, was so gross as in the opinion of the Government renders him unfit to practise as a notary." The enquiry held against Kashi Prasad Saxena subsequent to that decision is open to similar criticism. In the first place it is difficult to take the view that the charges framed against Kashi Prasad Saxena constitute professional misconduct. Secondly, the notice dated 3-3-1967 did not give any hint that the charges might amount to professional misconduct. Nor was there any indication in that notice that those charges were of such a nature that, if proved, Kashi Prasad Saxena was likely to be declared unfit to practise as a notary. In view of these defects in the proceedings, the notification dated 30-6-1967 was rightly quashed by the learned single Judge.” 15. Nor was there any indication in that notice that those charges were of such a nature that, if proved, Kashi Prasad Saxena was likely to be declared unfit to practise as a notary. In view of these defects in the proceedings, the notification dated 30-6-1967 was rightly quashed by the learned single Judge.” 15. In the case at hand notice as envisaged under Sub-rule (4A) of Rule 13 of Rules of 1956 stating charge or charges against petitioner with particulars of the oral and documentary evidence relied upon is not sent by the appropriate government indicating such professional misconduct might render him unfit to practice as notary. 16. For the aforementioned reasons in the opinion of this Court in absence of appropriate notice with statement of charges by the appropriate Government, petitioner was deprived of his legitimate right to defend, and therefore, the order passed being in violation of the provisions as contained under Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 and Rule 13 of Rules of 1956 is not sustainable. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order 02.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law if they so desire while considering the application for renewal of certificate.