Judgment :- 1. The last of the orders of the Government regarding the petitioner is Order No. D. Dis. 8643/54/Fd. D., dated the 12th September 1955 (Ext. H), which reads as follows:- "In the Government proceedings read as first paper above, Sri K.P. Joseph, Godown Keeper under suspension was ordered to be reinstated in service in the Education Department where he holds a lien as P.D. Teacher, on his depositing the amount due from him towards cost of the shortage. Government after examining the case of the petitioner have been fully satisfied that he was grossly negligent in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner's conduct in this regard has to be viewed sternly and appropriate punishment ordered which can in the circumstances of the case, be nothing short of removal from service. Government, however, taking a lenient and general view of the case, ordered that the petitioner would be reinstated in service if he would remit the entire cost of the shortage in stock, noticed. He will be given three months' time to deposit the amount. The period of suspension till the date on which he deposits the amount and is reinstated, will be treated as substantive punishment for his gross dereliction of duty. In case he fails to avail himself of the concession now extended by depositing the amount, within the period specified, he will be removed from service. Steps will also be taken to recover the amount due by coercive process." 2. Under Art.311(2) of the Constitution the petitioner cannot be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank "until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him". As pointed out in Basu's Annotated Constitution of India (p. 357): "This clause requires that the civil servant in question is entitled to have an opportunity of showing cause at two stages: (a) When the charges are enquired into, the person charged should be given a reasonable opportunity of entering into his defence. (b) Next, when the enquiring authority has come to his conclusions on the charges, a notice must be given to the person to show cause against punishment proposed as a result of the findings of the enquiry." The only notice asking the petitioner to show cause against the punishment proposed on which the learned Government Pleader relies is Ext. (b) Next, when the enquiring authority has come to his conclusions on the charges, a notice must be given to the person to show cause against punishment proposed as a result of the findings of the enquiry." The only notice asking the petitioner to show cause against the punishment proposed on which the learned Government Pleader relies is Ext. IX which is in the following terms: "The explanation offered by Sri K.P. Joseph for the high shortages found in the Sulaiman Godown during the period he was in charge of the godown, and especially in respect of the very heavy shortages found in the case of rice stocked in the godown from S.S. Jalavihar of 16-3-1952, are very unsatisfactory and unacceptable. It is evident that Sri Joseph has been guilty of gross negligence in the handling of Government stock and has caused heavy loss to Government thereby. Sri Joseph is therefore directed to show cause why he should not be reverted from his post of godown keeper besides recovering the cost of the shortages from him. Notice is hereby given to Sri K.P. Joseph, that unless he submits a reply to this notice within a week from the receipt of the same further action will be taken in the matter without hearing him." I do not consider Ext. IX as a sufficient notice under Art.311(2) of the Constitution to show cause against the punishment imposed by Ext. H and in that view the said order has to be quashed and I direct accordingly. 3. I need hardly say that any further action that the Government propose to take in the matter should be taken as expeditiously as possible in view of the long period in which the petitioner has been under suspension, and that it should be after adequate opportunities are given to him to present his case against the action proposed. In the view I have taken it is unnecessary for me to consider the other arguments advanced by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and they are not considered in this judgment. 4. The petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs.