This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Tripura dated 18-9-1957 reverting the Petitioner who was Forester, Grade II to the post of Forest Guard and also to quash the order of the Chief Commissioner dated 5-3-1959 dismissing the Petitioner's appeal against the order oft the Divisional Forest Officer. (2) The Petitioner Sri Rabindra Mohan Laskar, Forester, Grade II was a Patrol Officer, North in 1957. The Divisional Forest Officer, Tripura who suspected illicit timber operations in Chailengta in Maslicherra area where one Ananga Mohan Choudhury, Forester Grade II was Beat Officer deputed the Petitioner to detect such illicit operations. The Petitioner accordingly visited the area on 24-4-1957, and detected some unmarked stumps along with the felled trees of the concerned stumps which were sale-marked. It may be mentioned here that the procedure was for the Forest Department to issue permits for cutting, certain marked trees to timber operators and when the sale amounts are paid by the timber operators they are allowed to cut down the trees by the Beat Officers and on such cutting the stumps as well as the felled trees have, to be marked by the Beat Officers with the sale-mark. The Petitioner detected certain felled trees with the sale-mark. But the corresponding stumps were not found to be sale-marked. His duty was then to-have seized such felled trees and reported the mat­ter to the superior officers. But what the Peti­tioner did was to inform Ananga Mohan Choudhury, the Beat Officer in-charge about the sale-marks in the felled trees and Ananga Mohan Choudhury was allowed to chisel off the sale-marks on the said trees and after the chiselling off the Petitioner seized those trees as trees illegally felled by the timber operator, one Umesh Chandra Roy. Thereby he tried to suppress the fact that the trees had been al­lowed by Ananga Mohan Choudhury to be illegally felled by the Contractor and that the felled trees had been irregularly sale-marked by Ananga Mohan Choudhury, Beat Officer to make it appear that they were properly felled. Thereby he also tried to make out that the trees were illegally felled by the timber operator without the knowledge of Ananga Mohan Choudhury. Thereby he also tried to make out that the trees were illegally felled by the timber operator without the knowledge of Ananga Mohan Choudhury. (3) This fact came to the notice of the higher authorities and on 5-6-1957 the District Forest Officer, Tripura asked a thorough enquiry to be held and a detailed report to be submitted by the-S, D. F. O. North (Annexure A). He also suspended the Petitioner on 8-6-1957 (Annexure B). A report was accordingly submitted on 17-6-1957, (Annexure C). (4) On 14-8-1957 the Divisional Forest Officer framed two charges against the Petitioner (Annexure D). One was of defacing the hammer impression from illicitly marked timbers and putting seizure hammer impression on such timber to conceal the [illicit activities on some consideration. The second charge was negligence of duty and violation of the order of the higher authority. The charges are not sufficiently clear and not very happily worded. It is difficult to understand what exactly was meant i>y saying that the defacing of hammer impression .and putting seizure hammer impression was done to conceal illicit activities on some consideration. Probably it was meant that the Petitioner did so on receiving illegal gratification. If that was the mean­ing, then it had to be made clear that the charge was one of illegal gratification and secondly the details as to who paid the illegal gratification and how much was paid and on what date and at what time and place it was paid have to be mentioned. (5) By way of explanation of the two charges allegations were also enclosed along with the charges (Annexure D). The allegations in respect of the first charge showed that on being deputed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Tripura to check timber operations at Maslicherra, the Petitioner visited the area and detected some unmarked stumps and saw the concerned felled trees sale-marked and that thereafter he in collusion with Ananga Mohan Choudhury, the Beat Officer, Chailengta arranged for the defacing of the hammer impressions by chisell­ing off the same and then put seizure hammer im­pressions in order to hide illicit activities on some considerations. Here the word used is "considera­tions" while in the charge it is said "consideration". The two words convey totally different mean­ings and they do not appear to have been made clear. With regard to the second charge of negli­gence of duty, it was mentioned that the Petitioner . Here the word used is "considera­tions" while in the charge it is said "consideration". The two words convey totally different mean­ings and they do not appear to have been made clear. With regard to the second charge of negli­gence of duty, it was mentioned that the Petitioner . who was deputed with written instructions to detect illicit operations and when he detected unmarked stumps with the timber of the concerned trees sale-marked, instead of proceeding legally and report­ing the matter to authority tried to hide the defects of the Beat Officer, Chailengta and regularise the matter by defacing the hammer impressions from the illicitly extracted timbers and putting seizure hammer impressions on the same and thereby neglected his duties and violated the order of the Divisional Forest Officer. (6) The allegations in support of the charges are thus fairly clear except in respect of the words "on some considerations" in respect of charge I. Now if the Petitioner had been found guilty and punished in respect of this vague allegation "on some considerations", I would have interfered in the Writ and held that as the charge was defective he cannot be said to have been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge. But actually nothing much depended on the words "on some considera­tions'' or "on some consideration". But it is necessary for me to impress on enquiring officers and disciplinary authorities that the charges framed must be definite charges and not vague charges, as other-wise there is every likelihood of the enquiry held on the strength of the charges being seriously vitiat­ed, But we are not much concerned with that ques­tion here as the enquiry proceeded on the basis of the admission made by the Petitioner. (7) The Petitioner was asked to submit a written statement of his defence to the charges framed against him. The Petitioner filed a written state­ment on 11-9-1957 (Annexure VII). In the written statement he requested that he may be excused and said that he was ashamed of his improper action which he had done wrongly. He also said that on account of the irregular marking work done by the Forest Guard Pulin Behari Choudhury, the Peti­tioner's colleague Ananga Mohan Choudhury was placed in a difficult situation and that on the per­sonal request of the said Choudhury who was on the verge of his retirement, the Petitioner acted im­properly. He also said that on account of the irregular marking work done by the Forest Guard Pulin Behari Choudhury, the Peti­tioner's colleague Ananga Mohan Choudhury was placed in a difficult situation and that on the per­sonal request of the said Choudhury who was on the verge of his retirement, the Petitioner acted im­properly. But he added that the chiselling off of the sale-mark was not done by him or in his presence, but that when he reported to Sri Choudhury about the sale-marks Sri Choudhury himself went to the spot and chiselled off the marks and afterwards the Petitioner put the seizure marks. He also added that he had not caused any loss to the Government as the party who felled the trees had agreed to com­pensate the loss sustained by the unauthorised ex­tractions. He further added that he did not want to produce any witness or document in connection with the charges. (8) Now it will be seen that the said written statement amounted to an admission of the allega­tions in support of the charges namely, that the Petitioner when he was deputed with written instruc­tions to detect illicit timber operations carried on by tile Beat Officer Ananga Mohan Choudhury he detect­ed the sale-marks improperly made on the felled timber and that instead of seizing the timber and reporting the illicit operations to the higher authori­ty he wanted to shield the said Choudhury who was on the verge of retirement at the latter's request and allowed him to chisel off the sale-marks, so that the Petitioner can report the timber as having been felled illicitly by the timber operator. The only thing that the Petitioner did not admit was that he did so for any illegal gratification or consideration. He would have it that he did so, out of considerations of loyalty to his colleague Ananga Mohan Choudhury. This amounted to a virtual admission of collusion with Ananga Mohan Chou­dhury and neglect of duty and disobedience and violation of the order of the higher authority which was the subject-matter of the two charges. He would have it that he did so, out of considerations of loyalty to his colleague Ananga Mohan Choudhury. This amounted to a virtual admission of collusion with Ananga Mohan Chou­dhury and neglect of duty and disobedience and violation of the order of the higher authority which was the subject-matter of the two charges. (9) When the written statement reached the Divisional Forest Officer he passed an order on 13-9-1957 that the Petitioner has practically admitt­ed all the charges brought against him, but that before taking final action he wanted to give him another chance by allowing him a personal hearing on 18-9-1957 and if the Petitioner failed to defend himself on that date, he may be discharged from service on the charges brought against him without making any further reference (Annexure VIII). On 18-9-1957 the Petitioner appeared before the Divisional Forest Officer and we find a note by the said Officer that the petitioner has admitted all the charges brought against him and sought mercy and that he has got nothing to say except a sincere as­surance for faithful discharge of duty in future, Hi retained in service (Annexure IX). (10) On the same day the Divisional Forest Officer passed his order finding the Petitioner guilty and reverting him from the officiating post of Fores­ter Grade H to his substantive post of Forest Guard (Annexure X). (11) The Petitioner's appeal to the Chief Com­missioner proved in fructuous. Actually a notice was issued by the Chief Commissioner to the Petitioner to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced and he should not be dismissed from ser­vice. But ultimately the Chief Commissioner con­sidered that the punishment of reversion was ade­quate and there was no need for enhancement and dismissed the appeal. Now the Petitioner has come by way of this Writ. (12) The Petitioner urged first that he was never sent by D. F. O. to detect the irregularities committed by Sri Ananga Mohan Choudhury. I fail to see how he can raise such a plea at all as in his written statement to the charges he has not controverted the statement in the allegations in support of the charges that he was given written instruc­tions in that behalf. I fail to see how he can raise such a plea at all as in his written statement to the charges he has not controverted the statement in the allegations in support of the charges that he was given written instruc­tions in that behalf. (13) Next it was stated that the Petitioner did not admit the charges in his written statement and that it was the duty of the department to have held a regular enquiry and examined witnesses and given him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that therefore he has not been given a reason­able opportunity of meeting the charges. I have already detailed the averments in his written state­ment and pointed out that it was a clear admission f the charges brought against him except that he denied that his improper conduct was the result of corruption. He also did not want an enquiry. When the petitioner thus admitted the charges and did not himself want an enquiry it was not necessary either under Article 311 or under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to hold an enquiry. This is made clear in Rule 15(4) of the said I Rules and there is nothing in Article 311 or in the deci­sions based on the said Article which would require that when a delinquent officer admits the charges brought against him it will be necessary to hold a regular enquiry. (14) When thus the delinquent officer has ad­mitted the charges brought against him, what the disciplinary authority had to do was under rule 15(10) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Con­trol and Appeal) Rules to decide as to whether any of the penalties should be imposed upon the officer and if he decides to do so, to give a notice to the officer stating the action proposed to be taken against him and call upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action. This is the Constitu­tional safeguard contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution and it has been laid down in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 , that if this second notice after the conclusion of the enquiry and after the proposed action has been decided upon is not given to a public servant the entire, proceedings would be vitiated. (15) What was argued for the petitioner was that this second notice was not given to him and that the proposed action to be taken against him on the findings in the enquiry was not communicat­ed to him and his representations were not heard before he was reduced in rank. But Annexure VIII was certainly communicated to the petitioner. I have already dealt with that document. It is true that it does not state in specific terms that the charges have been found proved against the petitioner nor does it say what action was proposed to be take against him on the findings of the charges. The wording of Annexure VIII is no doubt defective. It stated that the Petitioner has practically ad­mitted all the charges-brought against him and fixed 18-9-1957 for the personal hearing of the petitioner and stated further that if he failed to defend him­self at the personal hearing given to him on 18-9-1957, he may be discharged from service. Thus it may be said that the action proposed to be taken against the Petitioner was discharge from service. But unfortunately there is no punishment under Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification., Control and Appeal) Rules as "discharge" unless by "discharge" the disciplinary authority meant dismis­sal or removal from service. (16) It is such non-compliance with specific' rules framed for the purpose which leads to the fil­ing of these Writs. The Central Civil Services (Classi­fication, Control and Appeal) Rules have been so-framed to guarantee to public servants all the Con­stitutional safeguards provided under Article 311 in the matter of enquiries. Unless the disciplinary authori­ties acquaint themselves with the provisions of the said Rules before they proceed to take action against delinquent officers, and follow the said Rules strictly, Writs of this kind are bound to be a common feature, even if public servants are given only punishments-which they really deserve. If only Annexure VIII had been happily worded as required under Rule 15(10) of the said Rules, there would have been no scope for this Writ. Evidently this D. F. O. had not understood the said rules and hence the proceedings dated 13-9-1957 (Annexure VIII) became to some extent defec­tive. If only Annexure VIII had been happily worded as required under Rule 15(10) of the said Rules, there would have been no scope for this Writ. Evidently this D. F. O. had not understood the said rules and hence the proceedings dated 13-9-1957 (Annexure VIII) became to some extent defec­tive. But still, I find that the words used, though not happy, convey the meaning that the charges have been proved and that the Petitioner would be dis­missed or removed from service, if he did not ap­pear on 18-9-1957 to make his personal representa­tion. Thus Annexure VIII can be treated as the notice to show cause against the proposed punish­ment as required under Article 311 of the Constitu­tion and Rule 15(10) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. (17) It is further found that on 18-9-1957 the Petitioner's representations were heard by the D. F. O. The petitioner had nothing to say except beg for mercy and give a sincere assurance for faithful discharge of duty in future, if retained in service (Annexure IX). This would show that the Petitioner fully understood the import of the notice (Annexure-VIII) and that he had no cause to show against his being discharged from service except to beg fop mercy. (18) The said representations were taken into account by the D. F. O. in passing the final order Annexure X. The D. F. O. did not impose the more serious penalty of dismissal or removal from service which he could have imposed on the peti­tioner for the charges proved against him. Evidently in. view of the assurances given by the Petitioner of the faithful discharge of duty in the future, a leni­ent penalty of reduction in rank alone was given. (19) I am satisfied therefore that though there has been some little defect in procedure, there has been substantial compliance with the Rules and that the Petitioner has really been given the notice as required under Article 311 (2) against the proposed punishment and that it was only after the represen­tations made by the Petitioner in furtherance to the show cause notice were considered by the discipli­nary authority, that the lenient punishment of reduc­tion in rank was imposed on him. I see no grounds at all for interfering in this matter in this Writ. I see no grounds at all for interfering in this matter in this Writ. (20) It was further alleged in the petition though the matter was not argued at the time of hearing that the Chief Commissioner has not compli­ed with the Rules in the hearing of the appeal. As far as appeals are concerned, it is only the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules that will apply and there is no Constitutional guarantee in the matter of hearing of appeals. Rule ,30 of the said Rules does not say that the Petitioner should be given a hearing in appeal. The appellate authority has only got to study the records and see whether the rules have been complied with and if not, whether the non-compliance has resulted in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice and whether the findings are justified and whether the penalty imposed is proper. The order of the appellate authority (Annexure XI) shows that all these questions were considered in the order. The Petitioner was actually given a personal hearing as a notice had been issued by the appellate authority for enhancement of the punishment. But it was considered by the Chief Commissioner that no enhancement was necessary, but that the penalty imposed was not excessive and hence he dismissed the appeal. I see no reason for the Petitioner to complain. He has been let off with a lighter punish­ment than what he deserved. (21) There are no grounds to interfere in this "Writ. The Writ petition is accordingly dismiss­ed with the costs of the Respondents. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-. Petition dismissed.