Short Note : The petitioner was a Food and Civil Supplies Inspector, who was suspended with effect from 22-12-1965. It was decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was fixed for 29-6-1968 to enable the petitioner to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. On that date the petitioner could not appear at the enquiry because in obedience of a transfer order he was handing over charge. The adjournment requested by the petitioner was refused and the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte to complete the enquiry. Ultimately Director of Food and Civil Supplies removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner then filed an appeal against his removal from service to the State Government. The State Government came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer committed an error in proceeding ex-parte against him The State Government while retaining the appeal directed that the Enquiry Officer should give an opportunity to the petitioner of his defence and thereafter the matter should be re-submitted to the Government through the Director of Food and Civil Supplies. In place of the Enquiry Officer, the Collector then called the petitioner to hear his arguments and forwarded his report to the Government through the Director of Food and Civil Supplies. Without giving any further opportunity of any kind to the petitioner, acting on the Collector's report the State Government dismissed that appeal by its order Annexure-M dated 5-3-1973. Held : Having heard learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that this petition must be allowed. It was clearly held by the State Government as the appellate authority that the Enquiry Officer denied the requisite opportunity to the petitioner when he proceeded ex parte against him on 29-6-1968 The conclusion of the disciplinary authority based on that report of the Enquiry Officer was therefore found to be vitiated. On that conclusion of the State Government, the procedure adopted by it in disposing of the appeal was strange. Having reached the conclusion that such an opportunity was not given, the order of removal should have been set aside by the appellate authority. Moreover, the Collector's report obtained in this manner could not be relied on to cure the defect retrospectively and that too without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the same. Having reached the conclusion that such an opportunity was not given, the order of removal should have been set aside by the appellate authority. Moreover, the Collector's report obtained in this manner could not be relied on to cure the defect retrospectively and that too without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the same. The opportunity contemplated is to precede and not follow the punishment. Petition allowed.