him from the Society, is a serious circumstance, which ought not to be casually invoked and therefore, there is a duty cast on the authority to exercise such power with circumspection and independent application of mind. Especially, the circumstance that there was an earlier complaint on similar lines against the very petitioner and that having been stalled, would lead to an assumption that it is an indirect effort to get around those proceedings and to re-initiate an enquiry on the same allegations. Therefore, the authority ought to have properly assessed the allegations made. Keeping in view the background in which those allegations are made against the very petitioner, he ought to have independently called upon the petitioner to answer particular allegations which the authority thought was based on some material or other details. The fact that the second respondent has thought it fit to issue a notice to the complainant himself while issuing a notice to the petitioner, is proceeding as if the enquiry would be of an adversarial nature, which it is not. The authority ought to exercise power
