M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the Order no. PWD 200 SDA 72 dated 3. 10. 1977 passed by the respondent-State of karnataka, by which the petitioner's promotions for a period of five years were withheld and also the next increment available to him for the same period of five years were withheld with cumulative effect. ( 2 ) THE order came to be passed after a joint enquiry held against the petitioner and four others. The petitioner was the Accounts Superintendent in the Office of the Executive engineer, Public Works Department, tumkur, during the period from 10. 6. 1988 to 4-11-1971, and at the joint enquiry, he was designated as Accused government Officer No. 5. The Four other Accused Government Officers were Engineers in the same Department. Charges No. 3, 4, 5 8 9 10 and 12 were all relatable to the petitioner. It is unnecessary to refer to the actual charges, as the exact content of it is not known inasmuch as no return has been filed by the respondent-State upto the date of hearing of this writ petition. Nor in the impugned order are the charges culled out. The petitioner also was not furnished the actual memo of charges against him. But, the legality of the order questioned in these proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be dealt with on a short ground which has been raised in para 7 of the pleadings of the petitioner. Para No. 7 is as follows:"the petitioner has not been given the enquiry Officer's report. What the Government has, done is to communicate the impugned order ol the Government, the Order accepting the findings of the Vigilance commissioner and the report of the Vigilance Commissioner, while it is imperative that the Enquiry officer's report should have been supplied to the petitioner. " ( 3 ) THE proceedings of the Government from its inception to the passing of the impugned order, were governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) pvules,, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) A joint enquiry is permissible only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 14a of the Rules. " ( 3 ) THE proceedings of the Government from its inception to the passing of the impugned order, were governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) pvules,, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) A joint enquiry is permissible only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 14a of the Rules. Clause (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14-A of the Rules is as follows:"on receipt of the records under clause (d), the Government shall take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (21) and Sub-rule (23) of Rule 11 and Rule 11-A and in all such cases the Government shall be the disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8. " ( 4 ) FROM the above it is clear that the Government should take action in accordance with the provisions of sub- rules (21) and (23) of Rules 11 and 11a of the Rules. Sub-rule 4 (i) (a) of Rule 11-A of the Rules is as follows 'furnish to the Government servant a copy of the report of the inquiry held by it and its findings on each article of charge, or where the inquiry has been held by an Inquiring authority, appointed by it, a copy of the report of such authority and a statement of its findings on each aticle of charge together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring Authority and where the inquiry is held by the Vigilance commission under Rule 14a, a copy of the findings of the Inquiring officer with the recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner, and" ( 5 ) SRI S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that there is total non compliance with the mandatory requirements of the procedure laid down in terms of the Rules extracted above. He has further drawn my attent on to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of s. David v. State of Mysore wherrin identical question of not furnishing a copy of the report of the enquiry Officer together with the findings of the Government therro to the Accused Government officer at the time of issuing a show cause notice proposing punishment was considered. Somnath Iyer, J. , (as he then was) held in respect of the law as it stood at the relevant time that according to the provisions of Rule 14a (1) (f) when the government became the Disciplinary authority, the procedure prescribed by Clause (a) of Rule 11 (10) (1) wad the procedure which the Government was bound to adopt before it imposed any punishment. Government must furnisn to the servant a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with a. statement of the findings of the Inquiring Authority and also a statement containing brief reasons for disagreement between the Government and the Inquiring authority on the question whether the government servant was or was not guilty of the charge. ( 6 ) AS against the assertions of the petitioner, that he was not served with any such copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the learned government Pleader appearing for the State, is unable to show from the records pertaining to the case any evidence of such report having been so furnished to the petitioner. On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned order which is produced at Ex-A to the petition, indicates that the respondent issued show cause notices only to Sriyuths: G. Mallappa, Assisitant engineer and T. Lakkappa, Junior engineer, calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service. But, in the operative portion of the impugned order, punishment is awarded to the petitioner as well. This is clearly impermissible in law. The petitioner is, therefore, liable to succeed both on the ground that he was not served with a copy of the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer and also for the reason that no show cause notice appears to have been issued to him calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished in the manner in which he has been punished. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned order at Ex. A is quashed, by issue of a writ of Certiorari, as one without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned order at Ex. A is quashed, by issue of a writ of Certiorari, as one without jurisdiction. But, liberty is reserved to the Government to proceed from the stage of completion of the enquiry proceedings and the submission of the report by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner afresh, if so advised all other contentions of the petitioner not dealt with here, are left open ( 8 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's Fee is Rs. 250. --- *** --- .