JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - Ram Krishna, the respondent, was officiating Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Works Circle, Faizabad, when on October 4, 1967, he was suspended pending enquiry into certain charges. A charge-sheet was served on him on November 29, 1967. The enquiring officer in his report dated February 29, 1968, held that the charges had not been proved. The State Government, however, did not agree with the finding and decided that the respondent should be warned and an adverse entry should be made in his character roll. It was also decided to revert him to his substantive post of Executive Engineer. To this end a show cause notice was issued to him. 2. At this stage the State Government served upon the respondent two further charge-sheets on July 24, 1968. Shri O. D. Sharma, the Additional Chief Engineer, was appointed to enquire into these charges. He conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the State Government. The enquiring officer reported that none of the charges had been proved. The State Government examined the matter and came to a contrary conclusion. It decided that dismissal from service was the appropriate punishment. Accordingly on 16th October, 1969, it served a notice upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent submitted his reply on 15th November, 1969. While the matter was pending decision before the State Government, the respondent on 19th January, 1970, made a representation to the State Government in which he stated that he was a gazetted officer under the Government of U.P. and was entitled to demand that tire enquiry into the charges against him be referred to the U.P. Administrative Tribunal. In the prayer clause it was mentioned that if in the opinion of the Government the written statement does not demolish the charges, then the charges be referred to the U. P. Administrative Tribunal for a full and formal enquiry. The State Government, however, did not consider it feasible to refer the matter and so it ultimately passed an order dismissing the respondent from service on 23rd June, 1972. 3. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal by way of a writ petition. The State Government, however, did not consider it feasible to refer the matter and so it ultimately passed an order dismissing the respondent from service on 23rd June, 1972. 3. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal by way of a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that it was not necessary to go into the question whether the charges had been established and the order of punishment was legal, because the petition had to succeed on another ground. The learned Judge held that under Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 it was incumbent upon the Government to refer the case of a Government servant who is covered by Rule 4 (1) to the Administrative Tribunal for enquiry. In this case the respondent did specifically make a request for reference. The Governor had no power to refuse the request. In support, reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court Decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 S.C. 1618 . On this view the writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was quashed. Aggrieved, the State Government has come up in appeal. 4. Rule 4 (1) confers a discretion upon the Governor to refer cases of the kind mentioned in its various clauses to the Tribunal. Rule 4 (2) says that the Governor may refer the case of a Gazetted Government servant on his own request to the Tribunal. Construing this rule the Supreme Court in Jogendra Singh's case held that the use of the word `may' in sub-rule (2) was indicative of a command. The Governor had no discretion not to refer a case where the delinquent officer makes a request. It was observed : "In other words, the plain and unambiguous object of enacting Rule 4 (2) is to provide an option to the Gazetted Government servants to request the Governor that their cases should be tried by a Tribunal and not otherwise." Clearly the rule was construed as giving an option to the charged officer to have the charges against him tried either by the departmental authority under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or by the Administrative Tribunal under the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules. The construction placed upon this rule by the Supreme Court is clearly indicative of the position that the charged Government Servant has not been conferred an option to have a second innings before the Administrative Tribunal after he has undergone willingly the enquiry before the departmental authorities under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In this view of the matter it is obvious that there is an implicit limitation as to the stage or time upto which the option can be exercised. When a charge-sheet is served upon a Government servant he has to make up his mind whether he would like the charges to be enquired into by the Tribunal and if so to make a request at that stage. If once the officer elects that the charges to be enquired into by the authority under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the stage for his exercising the option in favour of the Tribunal is past and the officer no longer possesses the discretion to have the case referred to the Tribunal. 5. This construction is supported by the other rules. A reading thereof shows that the Tribunal is to make an appropriate enquiry into the charges. The Tribunal gives an opportunity to the delinquent officer to offer his explanation in respect of the charges. Under Rule 9, after completing the proceedings the Tribunal shall make a record of the case in which it shall state the charges, the explanation, its own findings and the views of the assessors. It is also to recommend the appropriate punishment. It is apparent that the Tribunal has to conduct an enquiry and record its findings and recommendations to the Governor. In our opinion, these rules do not contemplate two parallel enquiries into the same sort of charges. The rules contemplate an original enquiry into the charges at the hands of the Tribunal. They do not contemplate a sort of an appeal to the Tribunal as against the findings recorded, if any, by the authority constituted under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 6. In the present case the respondent made a request for reference to the Tribunal on 19th January, 1970, after receipt to the show cause notice why he should not be dismissed and after he had even furnished his reply. That was too late a stage for making such a request. 6. In the present case the respondent made a request for reference to the Tribunal on 19th January, 1970, after receipt to the show cause notice why he should not be dismissed and after he had even furnished his reply. That was too late a stage for making such a request. The State Government was justified in ignoring it. The order of dismissal could not be quashed on that ground. 7. Since the petition proceeded on other points as well on which the learned single Judge has not expressed any opinion, the case has to go back. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned single Judge for decision of the writ petition in accordance with law. The appellant will be entitled to the costs of the appeal.