JUDGMENT C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, challenges the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated as against his client. But that question does not now arise; because the limited point that has now to be considered is regarding the order Ext. P. 4, passed by the State Government, invoking the provisions of R.34 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960. R.34, occurring in Part VII, dealing with, without the proviso, Review, is as follows: "State Government's power to review. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the State Government may, on their own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, review any order passed by a subordinate authority which is made or is appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by R.39, and after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary:- (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as they consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other order as they deem fit." It is seen that section must have been taken on the basis of R.34(b) quoted above. The proviso, occurring in that is not necessary and that is not extracted. 2. It will be seen that the petitioner was alleged to have found guilty of certain misconduct and accordingly, the District Transport Officer, Alwaye framed the charge contained in Ext. P. 5. The petitioner appears to have controverted the allegations that have been made in the said charge sheet and ultimately, under Ext. P. 6 dated 14-8-1960, the District Transport Officer, has no doubt, recorded findings to the effect that the charges framed as against the petitioner are proved. It is not really necessary for me to consider the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the District Transport Officer as against the petitioner. No doubt, Mr. P. 6 dated 14-8-1960, the District Transport Officer, has no doubt, recorded findings to the effect that the charges framed as against the petitioner are proved. It is not really necessary for me to consider the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the District Transport Officer as against the petitioner. No doubt, Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Enquiry Officer, has thoroughly mis-understood the nature of the charges and the explanation furnished by the petitioner as well as the findings on the charges and therefore, the findings are really not supported by the materials in the case; nor even justified by the charges framed as against the petitioner. But as I mentioned earlier, it is not necessary for me to go into all those aspects at present. 3. On the basis of these findings, recorded in Ext. P. 6, the punishing authority, namely, the Director of Transport passed the order Ext. P. 1. The only aspect to be noted therein, is the imposition of a punishment, as against the petitioner, by way of reducing him permanently to the lowest rank among the permanent lower division clerks in the seniority list. 4. This order, imposing the penalty as referred to above, is the subject of appeal before the Chairman, Kerala State Transport Board, Trivandrum. There is no controversy that the said authority is the appellate authority and that appeal has been filed on 29-11-1960, and a copy of the memoranda of grounds has been filed as Ext. P. 2, 5. But it is seen that the State Government appears to have proceeded to take action on the basis of R.34(b) of the Rules referred to above. That proceeding was initiated under Ext. P. 3 dated 4-5-1961. The State Government refers to several matters and ultimately, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty, imposed under Ext. P. 1, should not be enhanced to one of dismissal from service and he was also directed to place his explanation between the period mentioned therein. This communication, Ext. P. 3 is dated 4-5-1961. The petitioner, no doubt, appears to have made representations showing cause against the proposals. Here again, the petitioner appears to have emphasised that the appeal filed by him as against the order Ext. This communication, Ext. P. 3 is dated 4-5-1961. The petitioner, no doubt, appears to have made representations showing cause against the proposals. Here again, the petitioner appears to have emphasised that the appeal filed by him as against the order Ext. P. 1 is pending before the Appellate Authority and if the appeal is taken up by that Authority, he is entitled, under the rules, to challenge not only the punishment as such that has been inflicted, but also the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the punishment has been imposed. 6. But ultimately, it will be seen that the State Government, by its order Ext. P. 4 dated 15th February, 1962, passed an order, dismissing the petitioner from service, from the date he was placed under suspension, in consequence of action being taken by the Government. 7. No doubt, that order refers to another officer with whom this Court is not now concerned in these proceedings. 8. The attack that is made by the learned counsel as against this procedure adopted by the State Government is that when the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, challenging the order Ext. P. 1, the State Government has practically denied the exercise of that right of appeal and has practically scuttled the appeal that was pending before the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel urged that whereas in response to a notice or action taken under R.34 of the Rules referred to above, the petitioner has got only a limited opportunity of making representation against any enhancement of penalty that is proposed, he has got an effective and real opportunity of challenging not only the penalty that has been imposed, but also the findings recorded against him, if he is allowed to have the appeal taken up and disposed of. That opportunity has been denied to the petitioner by Government taking action under R.34(b) of the Rule referred to above, in this case. 9. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader urged that power is conferred on the State Government under R.34, to impose penalty and notwithstanding the fact, that the proviso (i) to R.34 states that the party is to be called upon to make a representation regarding the enhanced penalty and a party is entitled to challenge the findings that has been recorded. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader urged that power is conferred on the State Government under R.34, to impose penalty and notwithstanding the fact, that the proviso (i) to R.34 states that the party is to be called upon to make a representation regarding the enhanced penalty and a party is entitled to challenge the findings that has been recorded. That is, according to the learned Government Pleader, when action is taken by the State Government under R.34, a party can challenge the findings on the basis of which the enhancement is proposed. 10. No doubt, technically, the contention of the learned Government Pleader may be correct, but it will be seen that according to the strict wording of the first proviso to R.34, the impression that is left in my mind is that there is only a limited right of the party for making representation regarding the enhanced penalty that has been imposed. At any rate, surely the authority concerned will have regard to this only limited aspect and it cannot certainly be said, a right of appeal, where a party can canvass all aspects of the matter, including a finding of facts, is still available in that sense, when action is taken under R.34, by the Government. 11. Therefore in view of this limited aspect, I am left with no other alternative, but to quash the order, passed by the State Government under Ext. P. 4. 12. There is no further purpose in allowing the Chairman, Kerala State Transport, before whom the appeal appears to have been pending at the time when the order passed, to take a fresh adjudication. 13. Therefore, the proper thing is to direct the Government itself to take up the objections that have been filed by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice, issued under Ext. P. 3, and after giving a full and fair opportunity to the petitioner to place all aspects that he likes to place before the Government, the Government should take ultimately a decision one way or the other. The petitioner, in connection with the notice, issued by the State Government under Ext. P. 3, is given liberty, within three weeks from today to file any fresh or additional statement that he may like, in response to the notice Ext. The petitioner, in connection with the notice, issued by the State Government under Ext. P. 3, is given liberty, within three weeks from today to file any fresh or additional statement that he may like, in response to the notice Ext. P. 3, and the State Government will do well to give him also an opportunity to place his case by giving him a hearing as such, and at that hearing, it is open to the petitioner to place before the authority, any materials that he may choose to place before the Government. 14. After complying with all these formalities, the State Government is to take a decision one way or the other. 15. But the fact that this Court has now set aside the order Ext. P. 4, should not give a right to the petitioner to be taken up in service immediately, because the order Ext. P. 4 is one dismissing the petitioner from service. No doubt that will be set aside for the present and pending the further and final adjudication that is to be made by the Government, in accordance with the directions given in this order, the petitioner will continue to be under suspension on the basis of the order passed by the State Government dated 12-4-1961. Subject to these directions and observations, the order under attack is set aside. Parties will bear their own costs.