ORDER : This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the respondents terminating the petitioners service. 2. The facts material for the disposal of the petition as alleged are these. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by the General Manager, Manipur State Transport, respondent 2, on 22nd June, 1960. The petitioner was detailed for duty as a Conductor from time to time for different places, and on 29-9-62 he was in detailed for duty as a Conductor of the Imphal Bus No. MNS. 2996, for New Churachandpur to Imphal Service. When this Bus reached Pheibokchao Ikhai, Shri H. Shyamkishore Singh, T.I., M.S.T. at about 1-30 p.m. checked the Bus and found 25 passengers on the Bus, and out of them 4 were without tickets. It was also found that he issued a party ticket of 10 passengers against rules in order to cheat the Government. Thereupon Shri Shyamkishore Singh submitted a report to the General Manager, M.S.T. to take action against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule 1 of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 9th October, 1962 and started disciplinary proceedings against him. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner by the General Manager, M.S.T. respondent No. 2, and the petitioner was called upon to submit a written statement of defence. In compliance with it, the petitioner filed written statement of defence on 12-10-62 to the General Manager. Thereafter, Shri. N.N. Pati, Labour Officer, Manipur State Transport, was appointed as Inquiring Officer, and he informed the petitioner that the Departmental Enquiry would be held by him, so he should appear before him with all his witnesses and other evidence. The Inquiring Officer after the enquiry submitted his report to the General Manager, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice on the 22nd December, 1962 to the petitioner for the proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his representation on 1st January, 1963 stating that he has nothing tot submit over and above what he had already submitted in his previous defence statement. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 on 10-1-63 passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service. 3. The petitioner submitted his representation on 1st January, 1963 stating that he has nothing tot submit over and above what he had already submitted in his previous defence statement. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 on 10-1-63 passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service. 3. Being aggrieved by this order of respondent No. 2 the petitioner preferred an appeal td the Chief Commissioner of Manipur. The Chief Commissioner rejected this appeal by his order dated 4th July, 1963. Being aggrieved with this order of the Chief Commissioner the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the contention that the orders passed by the respondents are illegal therefore, they should be quashed. 4. The respondents, in their reply, denied the allegations raised by the petitioner. They also alleged that in this case the petitioner admitted the allegations on which the chargers were framed, and he did not produce any witness even though adequate opportunity was given to him, therefore, writ of certiorari cannot be issued. It was further alleged, that there was neither any irregularity in the proceeding nor there was any violation of the principle of natural justice, and no rules of the fundamental rights were violated as alleged by the petitioner. There is also no error apparent on the face of the record as alleged by the petitioner, therefore, it should be dismissed with costs. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this case the enquiry was held by an Officer who was not duly authorised under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to conduct the enquiry, and as such the Departmental Proceeding drawn up against the petitioner was void and illegal, therefore, the orders should be quashed. 6. The learned Government Advocate in order to meet this argument averred that the mere omission on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to appoint Shri N.N. Pati as Inquiring Officer in writing did not render the enquiry void. 7. After having given this matter my most careful and earnest consideration, I have come to the conclusion, that in all fairness, there was no order for the appointment of Shri N.N. Pati as Inquiring Officer. When he was not appointed as an Inquiring Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, in that case the enquiry report submitted by him cannot be called an authorised report. When he was not appointed as an Inquiring Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, in that case the enquiry report submitted by him cannot be called an authorised report. In my opinion the non-observance of the rules (Civil Services, Classification, Control and Appeal Rules) which have statutory force under Article 313 of the Constitution and the conduct of the enquiry by a Tribunal or Authority not competent to do so necessarily leads to the conclusion that the preliminary conditions subject to which alone the notice to show cause under Article 311(2) could be issued have not been satisfied and it follows that the resultant order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner from service is invalid as violative of Article 311(2) and it deserves to be quashed. 8. The learned Government Advocate contended that the Government will be at liberty to make fresh enquiry and dismiss him, therefore, in order to void such duplication the Court should not quash this order. There is no force in this contention. In my opinion if an order is without jurisdiction it must be quashed by a writ of certiorari and the mere fact that a similar order may later on he passed after legalising the proceedings should not stand in the way of the Court quashing that order. 9. The learned Government Advocate further averred that the petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction of Shri N.N. Pati is not entitled to the relief of writ of certiorari, Reliance was placed in this connection on the case of Surya Rao Bahadur Varu v. Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates) Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 472 . In the cases where a person submitted to the jurisdiction of a tribunal different considerations may arise when a relief of certiorari is! claimed for. Even in those cases it may be said that if there is an initial want of jurisdiction the were fact that the petitioner has failed to raise an objection to the want of jurisdiction in the trial Court will not disentitle him to a relief by this Court. In the present case the Inquiring Officer was not properly appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case the Inquiring Officer was not properly appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was, therefore, always open to the petitioner to say that there is no such properly constituted body which could act in such matters and any decision taken by such a body will necessarily be without jurisdiction which can be challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, even though he appeared before Shri N.N. Pati. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that assuming for the sake of arguments that the Inquiring Officer was duly empowered to conduct the proceeding, but not a single witness on behalf of the prosecution was examined to prove the charges brought against the petitioner and as such the proceeding was irregular and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. It has not only violated the principle of natural justice but it is in derogation of the rules of Departmental Proceedings. This contention of the petitioner is plausible but not tenable in view of the admission of the facts by him. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in this case the report of the Inquiring Officer was not given to the petitioner therefore it amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of showing cause as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 12. The learned Government Advocate in order to meet this contention urged that in this case no miscarriage of justice or any prejudice to the petitioner was caused by non-supplying of the report of the Inquiring Officer along with the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty. In this case the enquiry was conducted in his presence, and he was fully conversant with what transpired in the course of the enquiry, and as such there was nothing which was kept secret from him. Therefore, non-supply of copy of the report of the Inquiring Officer is not hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 13. After having given this matter my most careful and anxious consideration, I find that according to the Central Civil Service Rules, 1957, it was necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to supply the report of the Inquiring Officer to the petitioner. 13. After having given this matter my most careful and anxious consideration, I find that according to the Central Civil Service Rules, 1957, it was necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to supply the report of the Inquiring Officer to the petitioner. In this case the report of the Inquiring Officer was not supplied to the petitioner, therefore the procedure for imposing major, penalty as laid down in Rule 15 was not properly followed and due to that the petitioner was prejudiced. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner next averred that the proposed penalty was based on the ground amongst others that the said Conductor was also punished in a similar case for carrying 16 passengers without ticket and was punished by stoppage of 2 increments which is not a part of the charge or of the allegations. The removal of the petitioner on. the finding which is not a part of the charge or of the allegations amounts to the violation of. the principle of natural justice. 15. The learned Government Advocate in reply contended that the Disciplinary Authority expressly mentioned in the second show cause notice about the record of the past service of the petitioner relating to the punishment of. stoppage of two increments for having carried 16 passengers without ticket in a similar case, indicating thereby that it would be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of punishment. The petitioner having failed to make any representation against the taking into consideration of his past career though adequate opportunity was given, is not entitled to complain now in this writ proceedings. 16. I have given my most careful and anxious consideration to it and I have fully pondered over the rival arguments. In view of the facts of the case I find that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner carries such weight. It is not necessary for purposes of the instant case to determine, whether under Article 311(2) of the Constitution a civil servant is entitled to contest the finding regarding his guilty while showing cause against the punishment that is proposed. I assume that the enquiry held was proper and the finding against the petitioner regarding the non-issue of the tickets is wall based. I assume that the enquiry held was proper and the finding against the petitioner regarding the non-issue of the tickets is wall based. The question is whether despite the failure of respondent 2 to intimate to the petitioner his past record of service, as a ground on which her proposed to assess the measure of punishment, it can be held that a "reasonable opportunity", as contemplated by Article 311(2), of showing cause against the proposed action was given to the petitioner. It was not disputed that the competent authority is entitled to take into consideration the record of a civil servants past service in order to determine the quantum of punishment. What, however, was contended was that if the civil servant is not at all apprised of the record of his past service, nor is he informed that it will be taken into account in order to decide the question of punishment, he cannot be deemed to have been given a "reasonable opportunity" to show cause against the proposed action. Normally the question of punishment is linked up with the gravity of the charge, and the penalty that is inflicted is! proportionate to the guilt. Where the charge is trivial and "prima facie" merits only a minor penalty, a civil servant may not even care to defend himself in the belief that only such punishment as would be commensurate with his guilt will be visited on him. In such a case, even if in the show cause notice a more serious punishment is indicated than what the finding of guilt warrants, he cannot be left to guessing for himself what other possible reasons have impelled the proposed action. It is not, therefore, sufficient that other considerations on which, a higher punishment is proposed are present in the mind of the competent authority or are supported by the record of service of the civil servant concerned. In a case where these factors did not form part of any specific charge and did not otherwise figure in the departmental enquiry, it is necessary that they should be intimated to the civil servant in order to enable him to put up proper defence against the proposed action. Judged on this principle, it cannot be held in the instant case that the requirements of Article 311(2) were duly complied with. In this case the petitioner was not supplied with a report of the enquiry. Judged on this principle, it cannot be held in the instant case that the requirements of Article 311(2) were duly complied with. In this case the petitioner was not supplied with a report of the enquiry. In the second show cause notice the petitioner was informed about it, but he was not afforded access to the record of his service and was not given a reasonable time to show cause against the adverse remarks contained therein. I, therefore, find that the requirements of Article 311(2) were not fulfilled, and consequently the orders terminating his service cannot be maintained. 17. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in view of the facts of the case it is evident that the order of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner is palpably erroneous and hence it should be quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to cancel the said order of removal and to forbear or refrain from giving any effect whatsoever to the said removal order and to treat the petitioner to be in continuous service from the date of appointment till the date of his removal. 18. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that there is neither any irregularity nor illegality in the order passed, by the respondents, but in case the Court comes to the conclusion that there has not been proper compliance of Article 311(2) in that case a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the respondents. In view of the facts of the case as referred to above I find that there is great merit in this writ petition and hence it should be accepted. 19. The application is accordingly allowed and the orders of the respondents terminating the petitioners service as a measure of punishment are quashed. The State Government shall be at liberty to take such action against the petitioner according to law as it may deem fit. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Application allowed.