MEHROTRA, C. J. Petitioner Bimal Kumar Pandit after appear­ing in the competitive examinations held by the Assam Public Service Commission in the year 11953 was 'appointed on probation to the Assam-Civil Service - Class I - Junior Grade and post­ed at Jorhat by a notification dated the 11th De­cember 1953. By a letter dated the IMh Decem­ber 1959 the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam who has been impleaded as opposite parity No. 2 to the present petition, asked the petitioner to show cause within fifteen days of the receipt of 'he communication under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter cabled the Civil Service Rules) as to why he should not be dealt with under the aforesaid rule. At the time of this communication the petitioner was acting as an Extra-Assistant Commissioner at Shillong. By the aforesaid communication the Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam was authorised by the Governor to conduct the enquiry and to report to the Chief Secretary his findings. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explana­tion to the inquiring officer- After the inquiry was completed by the Commissioner of Plains Division the Petitioner was asked by a letter dated the 1st June 1960 by the opposite party No. 2 to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him and he was further asked to submit his explanation on or before the 18th June I960. A copy of the re­port of the inquiring officer was enclosed along, with the communication. The petitioner filed his written explanation. By a letter dated the 8th July 1961, the Chief Secretary passed the following order against the petitioner:- "The Governor of Assam is pleased to 'reduce in rank' Shrj Bimal Kumar Pandit Extra Assistant Commissioner, on probation in the Assam Civil Service, Class J .(now under suspension) to the Assam Civil Service, Class II, permanently, with effect from the date he takes' over as such. The Governor of Assam is further pleased to direct that shri Bimal Kumar Pandit, will be on probation in the Assam Civil Service, Class II for two years, subject to termination, if his work and conduct be not found satisfactory. The Governor of Assam is further pleased to direct that shri Bimal Kumar Pandit, will be on probation in the Assam Civil Service, Class II for two years, subject to termination, if his work and conduct be not found satisfactory. The officer will draw his pay in the minimum of the scales of pay A. C- S- Class II and his seniority in the-Cadre will be determined with effect from the date of his joining". The order dated the 8th July .1.9.61 is im­pugned by the Present petition under Article 220 of the Constitution. (2) Mr. Lahiri who appears for the petitioner^ has .challenged the order on a number of grounds. Firstly he contends that there was no proper-delegation of authority to the Commissioner of Plains Division to make an inquiry. His second •contention is that the order passed does not cons­titute a reduction in rank as contemplated under the Civil Service Rules and thus the punishment awarded i3 beyond the scope of opposite party -No. 2. Thirdly it is urged, that it does not appear from the order passed by the Chief Secretary that he applied his mind, to the report submitted -by the inquiring officer and came to an indepen­dent conclusion as to which of the charges accord­ing to him have been established against the petitioner. Before issuing a notification to how cause against the proposed punishment the punishing .authority has to make up its mind as to which of the charges have been established against the petitioner. Unless the punishing authority has made up its mind about the charges, no show-cause notice against the petitioner could be issued and thus in the present case there has been a violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Consti­tution. Lastly it is urged that the notice to show -cause against the proposed. Punishment has not been issued by the punishing authority. Thus the notice was illegal. (3) The contention of the petitioner that the delegation of authority to inquire was bad has no substance. In the case of Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court reported in (1955) 2 SCR 1331: ((S) AIR 1956 SC. Punishment has not been issued by the punishing authority. Thus the notice was illegal. (3) The contention of the petitioner that the delegation of authority to inquire was bad has no substance. In the case of Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court reported in (1955) 2 SCR 1331: ((S) AIR 1956 SC. 285 ) it was held that the exercise of 'power to appoint or dismiss an officer is the ex­ercise not of a judicial power but of an adminis­trative power and that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his function merely because he has deputed a responsible and competent official to enquire and report. (4) The validity of the notice dated the 1st June I960, issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty has been challenged °n several .grounds- It is urged that the notice purports to have been issued under Article 311(2) of the Con­stitution. Such an Act is an executive act of the Government and under Article 166 of the Con­stitution all executive action of the .Government of a State is to be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. Clause (2) of Article 166 provides that orders •and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an -order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. Cl. (3) gives power to the Governor to make rules for the more convenient transac­tion of the business of the Government of the Slate, and for the .allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion. It is contended that the notice is not expressed in the name of the Governor, nor is there proper authentication. It is contended that the notice is not expressed in the name of the Governor, nor is there proper authentication. Article 166(1) and (2) is only directory- If the Order complies with the pro­visions of Art. 166(1) and (2) the validity of the order cannot be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or .ex­ecuted by the Governor. If however it does not comply .with the provisions of Article 166(1) and (2), the immunity from being questioned on the ground that it was not executed by the Governor does not attach, to such an order. But it is open in a proceeding before this Court to show that in1 fact the order was passed by the Governor. There is no averment in the petition that the order was not made or executed by the Governor and thus the point cannot be allowed to be raised-by the petitioner at this stage of the proceeding. It was urged in the course of the argument that it does not appear from the record of the Secre­tariat that .at any stage the notice was brought to the notice of the Minister concerned and -he passed the necessary order. As I have already indicated above, there is no averment in the petition challenging the validity of the notice on the ground that it was not properly executed by the Governor. (5) It was then contended that Article 311(2) provides that a member of a civil service can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank only if he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. In the present case it is contended that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action. The argument briefly is that by the notice dated the 11th December 1959 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service or otherwise punished on the charges set Out in that notice. By the same letter the Commissioner of Plains Division was authorised to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner was given an opportunity to give his explanation to .the charges before the Commissioner of Plains Division. By the same letter the Commissioner of Plains Division was authorised to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner was given an opportunity to give his explanation to .the charges before the Commissioner of Plains Division. In response to the above notice the petitioner' submitted his explanation and the inquiring office gave his finding and submitted his report to the Government for necessary action. On the receipt of the report the notice dated the 1st June I960; was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment. From the per usual of that notice it does not appear that the; .Government which is the punishing authority, at all applied its mind to the finding given by "the inquiring officer and came to any conclusion as to which of the charges in the opinion of the Government have been established against the petitioner- Before issuing a notice under Article 311(21 asking the civil servant to show cause against the proposed punishment the dismissing authority has to make up its mind whether the charges have or have not been established against the civil servant- The dismissing authority has further indicate the reasons for holding that the proposed punishment should be awarded. In the notice issued by the .Government it is not; indicated as to which of the findings arrived at by the inquiring officer were accepted by the Government and which have been rejected- It also does not set out the reasons for the proposed punishment. The punishment awarded to the petitioner jay the final order is not also one against which notice to show; cause was issued to the petitioner. From all these circumstances it is contended that there has been non-compliance with the provisions of Article 3.11(2) of the Constitution. Under Article 310 of the Constitution the civil servant holds his office during the pleasure of the President or the .Governor as the case may be. The pleasure of the Governor is only subject .to the express provision of the Constitution embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution. Under Article 310 of the Constitution the civil servant holds his office during the pleasure of the President or the .Governor as the case may be. The pleasure of the Governor is only subject .to the express provision of the Constitution embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution. Article 311 thus embodies the constitutional guarantee and the exercise of pleasure under Article 310 of the .Constitution to that extent is subject to the condi­tions laid down under Article 311- Under Article 311 there are two limitations en the exercise of the powers of the dismissing authority- An authority inferior to the appointing authority has no power to dismiss a civil servant and further no person can 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. (6) .It will be convenient £t this stage to refer to some of .the authorities cited at the bar. (7) Reference may be made in the case of Khem Chand, v. Union of India reported in AIR 1958 IS.C 300. It was laid down in this case that: ''The reasonable Opportunity envisaged to 'the .Government servant by the provision contained in Art- 311(2) includes (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his ' innocence, which he can only do if he is told, what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punish­ment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and. .after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively pro­poses to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the government ser­vant-" In this case the petitioner was served with a notice to appear before one J. J8. Tandon_ I, A. S. to show cause against certain charges. Mr. Tandon submitted his report .to the Government, after giving notice to the petitioner. Tandon_ I, A. S. to show cause against certain charges. Mr. Tandon submitted his report .to the Government, after giving notice to the petitioner. No notice was served by the Deputy Commissioner who was the dismissing authority, asking the petitioner to show cause why a particular punishment should not be awarded to him and it was held in these circumstances that there was non-compliance with the provision of Article 311 (2). It was observed that when the Deputy Commissioner accepted the report and confirmed the opinion that the punish­ment of dismissal should be inflicted on the ap­pellant, it was on that stage being reached that the appellant was entitled to have a further opportunity given to him to show cause why that particular- punishment should not be inflicted on him. (8) Reliance is placed on the following passage, in the case of D. S (Garewal v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1959 SO 512 it Page 519: "Rule 5(9) provides for what is to happen alter the enquiry is over, and it lays down that after the enquiry has' been completed and after the punishing authority has arrived at a provi­sional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, if the penalty proposed is dismissal re­moval, compulsory retirement or reduction m rank, the member of the service charged shall be supplied, with a copy of the report of enquiry and the given n further opportunity to show-cause why the proposed penalty should not be imposed On him. The very fact that in this rule the word Government? is not used and instead the words 'punishing authority' are used show that the Question of punishment arises after the en­quiry is over and the relevant government would then consider that question; and if punishment is to be one of the three provided in Rule 4(1) the report of the enquiry officer would have to be forwarded to the Central Government so that it may determine the provisional punishment and communicate it to the officer concerned along with the report of the enquiry officer to comply with the provisions of Art. 311(2)." This ease is not of much assistance to the petitioner. (9) Reliance is placed on the case of Joga Rao v. State, reported in (S) AIR 1957 Andh, Pra 197. (9) Reliance is placed on the case of Joga Rao v. State, reported in (S) AIR 1957 Andh, Pra 197. The facts are that the appellant was a permanent Tahsildal and it having been brought to the notice of the Government that a prima facie case of corruption was made out against him the mat­ter was entrusted to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and enquiry the Tribunal framed charges and held an elaborate inquiry. The Tri­bunal recommended to 'the Government that the appellant should be dismissed 1'rcrn the service. On the receipt of report the Government of Madras issued a notice stating that a copy of the report is being communicated to the appellant and further that the Government agreed with the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the charges as well as .its recommendation regarding the punishment and have arrived at a provisional conclusion that the appellant should be dismissed from service. He was accordingly asked to show cause within one month from the date of the receipt of notice why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted a written explanation challenging the validity of the Tri­bunal's finding and also on the quantum of punish­ment and a final order was made by the Govern­ment dismissing him from service. On these facts the dismissal order was challenged. The petition filed before the single Judge was rejected and an appeal was also rejected by the Bench. Reliance however, is placed on the following passage: "The action proposed to be taken in regard to a civil servant will be known only after the enquiry is held and after the authority concerned comes to a tentative conclusion on the merits, for the punishment would necessarily depend upon the gravity of the offence committed by the civil ser­vant Therefore, whatever machinery is provided by the State for the enquiry, whether it be through one of its executive officers or through a Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, the entire enquiry from the beginning till the punishment is imposed on the officer is one process. It is an inquiry held by the authority empowered to remove the servant. It is an inquiry held by the authority empowered to remove the servant. Though the enquiry may have to be held in two stages, one, up to the time the authority comes to a conclusion on the question of the offence commit­ted by the; civil servant and the other from the stage notice is given to show: cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, the entire process of his enquiry will have to be scrutinised by ascertaining whether reasonable opportunity is given to the servant to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The opportunity to show cause is qualified by the word 'reasonable'. It is for the Court on the facts of each case to scrutinise the entire record to come to a conclusion whether such a reasonable opportunity was given to the Civil Servant. If as a matter of fact, every opportuni­ty was given to the civil servant to defend himself by examining witnesses and by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, it would be unreasonable to compel the authority to repeat the entire inquiry after the second stage is reached. It is true that reason­able opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken includes an opportunity to canvass the correctness of the reasons for taking the Proposed action. The authority should neces­sarily in its order requiring the civil servant to show cause should give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the rea­sons for coming to that conclusion. A civil servant can show cause by pleading that the Tribunal's report is vitiated by gross irregularities committed by it or by violating the principles of natural justice and as preventing him from examining his witnesses Or cross-examining the .witness who spoke against him or similar others. If the finding of the Tribunal is the basis for the proposed punishment, he can also attack the correctness of the finding 'by showing that the finding was not based on the evidence or is not supported by evidence." (10) The next case referred to is State of Andhra v. Rarnayya Suri' reported in AIR 1957 Andh Pra 370, in which the Madras Civil Ser­vices {Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules carne up for discussion. It was observed at page 372 of the report that: "After the Tribunal sent its findings and its recommendations, the .Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal that charges 1, 2 and 4 were proved and also considered that Charge No. 3 was also fully proved and as regards the punishment it also provisionally accepted recorn-meni3ations of the Tribunal. Though Govern­ment sent a copy of the proceedings of the Tri­bunal to the officer also with the notice issued to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, he was not informed that the Govern­ment differed from the finding of the Tribunal on Charge No. 3. The respondent therefore, was not given any opportunity to make the presentations to the Government that the findings of the Tribunal were correct. * * As we have already pointed out, the authority should necessarily in its order requiring the civil servant to show cause give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion." (11) The next case referred to is 'Bimal Gharan Mitra v. State of Orissa reported in (S) AIR 1957 Orissa 184. At page .188 their Lordships of the Orissa High Court have accepted the argument of Mr. Pal that the public servant against whom proceedings are pending is entitled to know the conclusions arrived at by the punishing authority for proposing such a punishment in order that he may be able to be in a position to defend his case. The public servant should not be left in 'the dark about the conclusions of findings of the punishing authority and a mere service of notice of the proposed punishment cannot be deemed to be giving a reasonable opportunity to The pubic servant for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him- (12) In the case of 'Krishna Gopal Mukherjee v- State reported in AIR I960 Orissa 37 the same principle was reiterated by the learned Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court. It was laid down by him that the dismissing authority must be satisfied first that the charges against the delin­quent public servant are proved and then he must tentatively decide about the Punishment to be inflicted on him and, it is only when the latter stage is reached that the notice under clause (2) of Art. 31.1 should issue under his authority to the delinquent servant to show cause against that punishment. The petitioner was entitled to a find­ing from the competent authority to the effect that the charges against him were proved to its satis­faction prior to his being called upon to show cause against &e proposed punishment. (13) From the cross examination of the authorities it will be clear that the question as to whether reasonable opportunity was afforded to a civil servant to show cause against the proposed punishment will .depend upon the circumstances of each case. The right to show cause against the proposed punishment includes the right to show the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the enquiring officer and is not confined to show cause against the proposed punishment alone. It is also clear that before a notice is issued to the civil servant to show cause against the proposed punishment the dismissing authority must have examined the finding of the inquiring officer for itself and have come to its own conclusion that the charges have been established. The notice to' show cause should indicate the reasons on which the dismissing authority has tentatively come to the conclusion that the proposed punishment should be awarded to the civil servant- After the dismissing authority has come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved against .the civil servant, the notice to show cause against the proposed punishment is to be issued and the reasons for coming to that conclusion are to be indicated in the notice to enable the delin­quent servant to show, cause against the proposed punishment, (14) In the light of the broad principles emerging out of the above decisions the facts of the present case will have to be examined. The letter issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary to the .Government of Assam on the 1st June 1960, does not indicate that the dismissing authority applied its mind .to the findings of the inquiring officer. The letter issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary to the .Government of Assam on the 1st June 1960, does not indicate that the dismissing authority applied its mind .to the findings of the inquiring officer. In this notice to show cause the proposed punishment is removal from service but the punishment actually awarded is reduction in rank. A copy of the report of the inquiring officer was no doubt sent to the petitioner along with the notice bust from the perusal of the report it is dear that the inquiring officer had not found all the charges proved against the petitioner. In the report the charges have been formulated into three heads - (a) the charges relating to the trial of G. R. Case No. 37(XA)54 (b) the charges relating Jo the explanation called for by 'the Sub-Divisional Officer and (c) the charges relating to the Pur­chase of land and construction of a house at Shillong. Items 1, 2 and 3 of the charges in the state­ment of allegations attached to the notice dated the 11th December 1959, which is marked as Annexure 'R-2' to this petition relate to the trial of G. R- Case No. 370(A)54. The inquiring officer has found that item No. (1) of charge (a) has not been proved- Regarding item No. (2) of charge (a) the inquiring officer has found that he is not guilty of deliberately misrepresenting facts to the Deputy .Commissioner; but he displayed inad­equate sense of responsibility by not personally verifying the exhibits with the affidavit filed. Regarding item No. (3) of charge (a) he has found that the charge of misconduct is not established- Regarding items (4) and (5) of the statement of allegations relating to charge (b) the inquiring officer has found that item No. (4) is established to the extent of proving that the Magistrate conducted himself irresponsibly hi handling the supply matters entrusted 'to him but that it was difficult for him to say whether the Magistrate did actually exceed ;the limits of the powers delegated to him by S. D. O- and .that item No. (5) has not been established. Items (8), .(7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) mentioned in the Statement of allegations relate to charge (c) regarding the purchase of land and construction of a house at Shillong. As to item (6) the finding is that the charge is not established. Items (8), .(7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) mentioned in the Statement of allegations relate to charge (c) regarding the purchase of land and construction of a house at Shillong. As to item (6) the finding is that the charge is not established. The inquiring officer has found item No. (7) against the petitioner- The charge in item No. (8) that the petitioner purchased the land at a much lower rate than the prevailing market price by exercising his official influence is found not to have been established- Item No. (9) is also not found to be established, The inquiring officer held that this is more a case of distress sale than speculation. Item No. (10) is found against the petitioner. The enquiring officer holds that his failure to declare his intentions to Government; and to await directions constituted a clear violation of Rule 8 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. The three charges partially established are items (1), (2) and (4) of the charge sheet. The first two relate to the missing of the exhibits from the record of G. R. No. 370. (A) 54 and the third to the submission of explanation asked for by the Sub-divisional Officer. He has however, observed that the lapses proved under these charges do not in his opinion cast any serious doubt on the honesty and integrity of the officer, although the evidence considered under items (1) and (2) proves his inexperience and that under (2) and (4) his irresponsibility. In these circumstances in his view the two charges which deserve consideration for purposes of punishment are items (7) and (10). (15) It does not appear from the notice ser­ved on the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment as to which part of the fin­ding of the inquiring officer has been accepted by the punishing authority. (16) In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State replying to the allega­tion in paragraph 15 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner was duly supplied with a statement of allegations brought against him. He was also given a personal hearing by the inquiring officer. Furthermore while asking him to show cause why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed upon him, he was furnished with a copy of the report of the inquiring officer. He was also given a personal hearing by the inquiring officer. Furthermore while asking him to show cause why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed upon him, he was furnished with a copy of the report of the inquiring officer. The fact that he was supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiring officer while asking to show cause against the proposed punishment of removal only goes to show 'that Government had nothing to disagree with the findings of the enquiring offi­cer. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit in reply to paragraphs 25 to 28 of the petition it is stated that the Government accepted the findings of the enquiring cffi9er and accordingly the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be removed from service and after receipt of the cause shown, the Government decided and Passed the impugned Order. These two paragraphs are verified as being true to the information received from records believed to be true. From the fact that the copy of the report of the enquiring offi­cer was supplied along with the notice it is sought to be inferred that the punishing authority had applied its mind to the report of the enquiring officer and had come to its own independent con­clusion that the charges were established. This inference in our opinion, cannot be drawn from the mere fact of sending a copy of 'the report. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner wa5 not given sufficient opportunity to show cause as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the order is thus violative of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitu­tion- It was contended by Mr. Lahiri that the punishment awarded to the petitioner does not amount to reduction in rank within the meaning of The Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. If the punishment awarded to the petitioner does not constitute reduction in rank Article 311(2) of the Constitution will not be attracted and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any protection. (17) Mr. Lahiri contends that although the proposed punishment amounts to a reduction in rank as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Con­stitution it does not come within the meaning of the word 'reduction' as used in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. We do not think that 'this contention is correct. (17) Mr. Lahiri contends that although the proposed punishment amounts to a reduction in rank as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Con­stitution it does not come within the meaning of the word 'reduction' as used in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. We do not think that 'this contention is correct. As however, we have held that the provisions Of Arti­cle 311(2) of the Constitution were not complied with in the present case the order passed against the petitioner is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the order dated the 8th July 1.961, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam with cost which we assess at Rs. 100/-. (18) S. K. PUTTA, J- : I agree. Petition allowed.