JUDGMENT In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the order of his dismissal from Government service passed by the Deputy Collector, North Bihar Revenue Division, Muzaffarpur, (opposite party no. 5) and the order rejecting his representation passed by the Special Officer-Cum-Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (opposite party no. 3). 2. The material facts necessary for disposal of this application may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division Sone Canals, Arrah on the 12th October, 1949. It appears that the petitioner was subsequently transferred to North Bihar Revenue Division at Muzaffarpur. In the year 1955 the petitioner was confirmed to the post with effect from the 26th February, 1953, by the order of the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division Sone Canals, Arrah. (A copy of the said order has been made Annexure 1' to the application). On the 21st April 1956, while the petitioner was holding the post of a cashier in North Bihar Revenue Division at Muzaffarpur, he was suspended by the order of opposite party no. 5 pending contemplated departmental proceeding against him. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioner by opposite party no. 5 and they were communicated to him by Memo No. 2356 dated the 6th May, 1957. A copy of the charges has been made Annexure' A' to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3. The charges, which were framed against the petitioner, read as follows: "Whereas you, Sri Jitendra Prasad wrote six letters to Sri Bhagwati Prasad Sinha, Tahsildar (under suspension) which were shown to you by the Sub-inspector of Police, Dhaka, on 5-5-56, and which show that while Sri Bhagwati Prasad Sinha was committing defalcation of Government money at Bettiah and Dhaka, you were helping him by removing surreptitiously from the Division Office such papers as Siaho., my inspection note of Bettiah, letter No. 31 dated 8-1-56 of Circle Officer, Bettiah, addressed to me although there papers were not in your charge and that you were in the lookout of opportunities for removing other papers with the evil intention to avoid detection of the defalcation by Sri Bhagwati Prasad Sinha. Whereas you, Sri Jitendra Prasad demanded money from Sri Bhagwati Prasad Sinha which fact gives rise to the inference that you had knowledge of the defalcation and the defalcation was done with your collaboration. Whereas your conduct shows that you are unreliable and untrustworthy and your removal of the papers amounted to theft within the meaning of Section 380 I.P.C.'' The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within one month from the receipt of the memo. In pursuance thereof the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations made in the charge sheet. He further made a request for' the copies of the letters alleged to have been written by him. When the copies of the letters were supplied to the petitioner, he sent another representation denying the authorship of the letters in question and pointed out certain interpolations in the dates of the letters. Thereupon the opposite party no. 2 asked the petitioner to appear in person on the 2nd May, 1957. When the petitioner appeared before the opposite party no. 5, the latter made corrections in the dates of the letters and thereafter the petitioner was asked to give further explanation. Accordingly, the petiti0ner Submitted his further explanation on the 10th May, 1957, in which he reiterated that none of the letters was written by him. It appears that on that very day the opposite party no. 5 passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner and one Raghubansh Bahadur Singh from service. (Copy of the order has been made Annexure 'III' to the application). 3. As stated in Paragraph 14 of this application, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of opposite party no. 5 on the 27th September, 1957, within the period of limitation prescribed. According to the petitioner, his appeal was not disposed of by the appellate court because the opposite party no. 5 made a representation to the effect that the matter be kept pending till the disposal of the case against one Bhagwati Prasad. As stated in the application, the petitioner sent several reminders for the disposal of the appeal but the same was not disposed of. It appears that the petitioner made a representation on the 10th August, 1966 and that representation was rejected by the order of opposite party no. 3 on the 15th December, 1967, a copy of which has been made Annexure V to the application. 4. Mr. It appears that the petitioner made a representation on the 10th August, 1966 and that representation was rejected by the order of opposite party no. 3 on the 15th December, 1967, a copy of which has been made Annexure V to the application. 4. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised three contentions: (a) That the petitioner having been appointed and confirmed to the post of a lower division clerk by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division Sone Canals, Arrah, could not lawfully be dismissed from the service by the Deputy Collector of North Bihar Revenue Division, Muzaffarpur, (b) That the petitioner having not been given an opportunity to show came against the proposed punishment of dismissal was denied the constitution right guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and, (c) That at the departmental enquiry, which was conducted by the opposite party no. 3, the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself and the enquiring officer, namely, opposite party no. 3, based his conclusion without looking at the original letters. 5. There does not appear to be any substance in the first point raised by Mr. Dutta. Article 311(1) of the Constitution enjoins that no civil servant shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The petitioner was serving at Muzaffarpur under opposite party no. 5 when the departmental proceeding was drawn up against him. The charges, which were framed against the petitioner, related to the period during which be was posted in North Bihar Revenue Division. The opposite party no. 5, who passed the order, was holding the post corresponding to the post held by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division Sone Canals, Arrah. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of dismissal was passed by an officer, who was subordinate in rank to the officer, who appointed the petitioner, in contravention of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. 6. Learned Government Advocate who has shown cause on behalf of the opposite parties, conceded that the petitioner was not given the second opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. Although the impugned order of dismissal was passed before the amendment of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, 1t was incumbent upon the dismissing authority to give second opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. Although the impugned order of dismissal was passed before the amendment of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, 1t was incumbent upon the dismissing authority to give second opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. In the case of (1) Khem Chand V. Union of India and others (A.1.R. 1958 Supreme Court 300) it was held by the Supreme Court that reasonable opportunity' to the Government servant, envisaged by the provision contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, 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 defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence, and finally, (c) 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 communicate the same to the Government servant. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that case interpreted the provision of Article 311 (2) as it stood before the amendment. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court it must be held that there has been infraction of the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted upon him. The second contention raised by Mr. Dutta must therefore, be accepted. 7. Mr. Dutta referred to the impugned order (Annexure In) and submitted that the order on the face of it shows that opposite party no. 5 did not refer to the original letters alleged to have been written by the petitioner. According to learned counsel, opposite party no. 5 based his conclusion that the petitioner was the author of those letters only on examining the contents from the copies of the alleged letters. It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Dutta that the opposite party no. According to learned counsel, opposite party no. 5 based his conclusion that the petitioner was the author of those letters only on examining the contents from the copies of the alleged letters. It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Dutta that the opposite party no. 5 did not examine the original letters, which were alleged to have been written by the petitioner, It appears from the impugned order that the opposite party no. 5 compared the copies of the letters with the originals in order to find cut whether there was any interpolation in the dates mentioned in the copies of the letters. There is also reference of Post cards in the order of opposite party no.5. All these indicate that the original letters were in possession of the opposite party no. 5 when he passed the Impugned order. Although I reject the contention of Mr. Dutta that the opposite party no. 5 did not examine the original letters alleged to have been written by the petitioner, I am inclined to hold that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the opposite party no. 5 should have either examined some witnesses on the point that the letters were in the writing of the petitioner or he should himself have compared the writings of the letters with the specimen writings of the petitioner. The conclusion that the petitioner is the author of the letters is based only on the examination of the contents of the letters. A mere examination of the contents of the letters by itself in my opinion, should not have been made a basis for holding that the petitioner is the author of those letters. If the opposite party no. 5 would have taken some other circumstances into consideration along with the circumstances that the contents of the letters showed that the letters were written by the petitioner, the matter would have been different. 8. For the reasons stated above I am of opinion that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. 9. As I have accepted the two contentions raised by Mr. Dutta, I bold that the order dismissing the petitioner from service is bad in law and is fit to be set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above I am of opinion that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. 9. As I have accepted the two contentions raised by Mr. Dutta, I bold that the order dismissing the petitioner from service is bad in law and is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the order as contained in Annexures III and V of the application and direct the authorities to proceed in the matter of departmental proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed