JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - In this petition vires of Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is under challenge. 2. The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Collectorate at Moradabad. He was working as agriculture income-tax clerk, looking after the cases arising under the U. P. Agriculture Income Tax Act. The Collector received complaints against him; after a preliminary enquiry he placed the petitioner under suspension and issued a charge-sheet to him on 16-3-1967 containing 16 different charges. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the charges. The Collector appointed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilari, who was Agriculture Income Tax Officer In-charge as enquiring officer to hold enquiry into the charges against the petitioner. A regular departmental enquiry as contemplated by Rule 55 of the Civil Service's (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, was held. On completion of the enquiry the enquiring officer submitted his report to the Collector on 15-9-1967. The Collector agreed with the report and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and after obtaining his reply he passed the order dated 27-7-1968 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation 'before the Board of Revenue, that was also rejected by an order dated 15-7-1971. Aggrieved the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. 3. Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution in as much as the recommendations made by the enquiring officer to the Collector relating to the punishment proposed against the petitioner was not communicated to him along with the report of the enquiring officer and show-cause notice with the result the petitioner could not get any opportunity to meet the said recommendations, although the Collector accepted the recommendations and proposed the punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. There is no dispute about facts on this question. There is no dispute about facts on this question. The respondents assert that the enquiring officer had no doubt made recommendations for awarding punishment of dismissal against the petitioner but that recommendations were not communicated to the petitioner in accordance to the Rule 55-A. The petitioner has challenged the vires of R. 55-A on the ground that it violated the Constitutional protection guaranteed to a Government servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 4. The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules were framed by the Secretary of State for India in Council in exercise of the powers under Sec, 96-B of the Government of India Act, 1919 and those rules continued to remain in force by virtue of Section 276 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and after the promulgation of the Constitution the rules have continued to remain in force under Article 313 of the Constitution. The rules are referable to Article 309 which confers power on the Governor to frame rules regulating the conditions of service of the State Government servants. Rules 55 and 55-A as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh lay down procedure for holding departmental enquiry against a Government servant. Rule 55 details the procedure for holding departmental enquiry. It lays down that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed against a person holding a civil post under the State unless he is informed in writing of the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken against him and unless he is afforded an adequate opportunity of defence. The grounds on which the action is proposed are required to be reduced in the form of definite charges which is communicated to the person charged and a reasonable opportunity is to be given to him put in written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If the party charged desires to be heard in person, an oral enquiry is required to be held in respect of the allegations which are not admitted. At the enquiry such oral evidence is required to be heard as the enquiry officer may consider necessary and the person charged is entitled to cross-examine witnesses, to give evidence and to make his statement. At the enquiry such oral evidence is required to be heard as the enquiry officer may consider necessary and the person charged is entitled to cross-examine witnesses, to give evidence and to make his statement. A record of proceedings is required to be maintained by the enquiry officer which include the record of evidence and statement of findings and grounds thereof. Rule 55 further lays down that the officer conducting the enquiry may also separately from the proceedings make his own recommendations regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Government servant. After the enquiry is completed the procedure laid down in Rule 55-A is required to be followed. It is necessary to set out the Rule:- "55-A. After the inquiry against Government servant has been completed and after the punishing authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall, if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of proceedings prepared under Rule 55 `excluding the recommendations, if any, in regard to made by the officer conducting the inquiry and be given a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit, by a particular date, which affords him reasonable time, such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the enquiry : Provided that, if for sufficient reasons, the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the proceedings prepared under Rule 55, the point or points of such disagreement, together with a brief statement of the grounds thereof shall also be communicated to the Government servant charged along with the copy of the proceedings under Rule 55." The above rule lays down that after the enquiry is completed the punishing authority is required to consider the report of the enquiry officer and to arrive at a provisional conclusion with regard to the penalty which in his opinion should be imposed against the party charged and if he is satisfied that charges are made out which call for awarding of a major punishment then he is required to issue a show-cause notice to the Government servant and to supply him a copy of the proceedings prepared under Rule 55. The notice must state penalty proposed to be imposed against the Government servant calling upon him to submit his representation as he may desire to make against the proposed penalty. The rule, however, further lays down that in supplying the record of the proceedings prepared by the enquiry officer, the recommendations, if any, made by him relating to the punishment will not be supplied to the charged Government servant, instead it should be excluded from the record of proceedings which is supplied to the Government servant. It is urged that the italicised portion of the rule "excluding recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment by the officer conducting the enquiry", is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 5. Article 311(2) of the Constitution lays down that no person who is a member of a civil service of Union or State or who holds civil post under the Union or State shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and where any punishment or penalty is proposed against him after such enquiry until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. The scope of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution has been subject-matter of interpretation on a number of occasions by the Supreme Court and it is now well settled that the concept of reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed comprehends that all relevant material with regard to the evidence, including the report or recommendations made by the enquiry officer must be disclosed to the Government servant to enable h m to submit his explanation to the proposed punishment, if this is not done the requirement of reasonable opportunity would not be fulfilled. The question whether the recommendations of the enquiry officer made to the punishing authority with regard to punishment is necessary to be communicated to the Government servant came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Gujrat v. R.G. Teredesai, AIR 1969 SC 1294 . The question whether the recommendations of the enquiry officer made to the punishing authority with regard to punishment is necessary to be communicated to the Government servant came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Gujrat v. R.G. Teredesai, AIR 1969 SC 1294 . The Supreme Court observed thus :- "But if the Enquiry Officer proceeds to recommend that a particular penalty or punishment should be imposed in the light of the findings or conclusions such recommendations form part of the record and constitute appropriate material for consideration of the Government and, therefore, it is essential that that material should not be withheld from him so that he could, while showing cause against the proposed punishment, make a proper representation. The entire object of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer is to enable the delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and that even if the charges are held to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly severe. If the Enquiry Officer has also made recommendations in the matter of punishment that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority even with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer. The requirement of a reasonable opportunity, therefore, would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his views in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent servant". The law declared by the Supreme Court is quite clear that unless the recommendation made by the enquiry officer with regard to the penalty or punishment proposed to be imposed against the Government servant is disclosed to him the requirement of reasonable opportunity as envisaged by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution will not be complied with. The communication of the recommendations made by the enquiry officer relating to the punishment, to the Government servant is a necessary and integral part of the requirement of reason I able opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution. 6. Rule 55-A which permits exclusion of the recommendations made by the enquiry officer relating to the punishment from being communicated to the Government servant is in conflict with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 6. Rule 55-A which permits exclusion of the recommendations made by the enquiry officer relating to the punishment from being communicated to the Government servant is in conflict with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The Governor has power to frame statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution regulating conditions of service of persons holding civil post under the State but the rules si framed must be subject to the provision of the Constitution as is clear from the opening clause of Article 309 itself. The rule making authority cannot frame a rule which may restrict or take away the Constitutional protection granted to a Government servant under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. If any such rule is framed, it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, hence void. In Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600 validity of Rules 148 and 149 as contained in Railway Establishment Code was in question. The rule conferred powers on the General Manager to dispense with or terminate the services of even a permanent railway servant by giving him three months notice. The Supreme Court struck down the rule on the ground that the rules were violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. In that connection the Supreme Court observed:- "There is no doubt that on a fair construction, Rules 148 (3) and 149 (3) authorise the Railway Administration to terminate the services of all the permanent servants to whom the Rules apply merely on giving notice for the specified period, or on payment of salary in lieu thereof, and that clearly amounts to the removal of the servant in question. The termination of the permanent servants tenure which is thus authorised by the said rules is no more and no less than their removal from service within Article 311 and so Article 311(2) must come into play in respect of such cases. That being so, the rules which do not require compliance with the procedure prescribed by Article 311 (2) must be struck down as invalid." 7. Rule 55-A which provides for the exclusion of the recommendations from the record of the proceedings and which authorises the punishing authority to exclude those recommendations from the copy of the proceedings as supplied to the Government servant, is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Rule 55-A which provides for the exclusion of the recommendations from the record of the proceedings and which authorises the punishing authority to exclude those recommendations from the copy of the proceedings as supplied to the Government servant, is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. As already discussed the concept of reasonable opportunity contemplates that the recommendations, if any, made by the enquiry officer must be disclosed to the Government servant so that he may make his representation effectively and persuade the punishing authority not to accept those recommendations. To deny such an opportunity would mean the denial of reasonable opportunity as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the result Rule 55-A to the extent it permits exclusion of recommendations made by the enquiry officer in regard to punishment from being supplied to the Government servant is ultra vires of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and, therefore, it must be struck down. 8. In the instant case it is admitted that the enquiry officer made recommendations to the Collector in the following terms:- "Thus it appears that all the charges against Shri Banshi Lal have been fully substantiated. He is guilty of gross negligence, utter and intentional carelessness in the discharge of his duties. As a correct fact the work in this section was put in action by Shri Banshi Lal and in spite of repeated warnings he did not amend himself. He tried to defend himself by saying his ignorance in this work, but ignorance is no excuse. He ought to have been careful in going through the rules and orders on this joint. Shri Banshi Lal has become incurable. I think he is not fit to be retained in service and this removal is only legitimate punishment which be awarded and he may be asked as to why he should not be removed from service". The above recommendations were accepted by the Collector and only thereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but the aforesaid recommendations were not communicated to the petitioner along with the record of proceedings and the report of the enquiry officer. In the absence of the said recommendations the petitioner did not get a reasonable opportunity to meet the same. In the absence of the said recommendations the petitioner did not get a reasonable opportunity to meet the same. If the petitioner had been supplied with the copy of the statement of witnesses he could have persuaded the punishing authority to take a different view and not to award extreme penalty of dismissal. Admittedly this was not done, hence the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of defence with the result the order of dismissal and the order of the appellate authority as also the order of the Board of Revenue is vitiated. 9. In view of the above discussion I allow the petition and quash the impugn ed orders. I further declare that the portion of Rule 55-A, "excluding the recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment made by the officer conducting the enquiry is ultra vires of the Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.