JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order under Annexure 8 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar, in a disciplinary proceeding imposing punishment of reduction of rank. 2. Three grounds have been raised at the hearing in support of the challenge, namely (1) The Petitioner's appointing authority was the Revenue Divisional Commissioner as would appear from Annexure 1 dated 28-7-1962, but the punishment of reduction which admittedly is a major penalty was imposed by the Collector - an authority inferior to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. The provision of Article 311(1) of the Constitution which has a corresponding provision in the Service Rules has thus been violated; (2) The Petitioner's first appointment was as Naib Tahasildar, redesignated as Revenue Inspector. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner could not have been reduced to a lower rank than the initial appointment by being made a Revenue Collection Moharir; and (3) The punishing authority was not entitled to take past conduct into account while imposing punishment without putting the Petitioner to notice that such facts were contemplated to be utilised against him. In our view, each of these points has substantial force. The appointing authority being the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, merely because by a set of Rules subsequently framed the punishing authority in respect of the category to which the Petitioner belonged was the Collector, the statutory requirement on the basis of the constitutional guarantee cannot be taken to be satisfied by the authorised officer imposing' the punishment. The appointing authority continued to be the Revenue Divisional Commissioner as a fact and the subsequent authorisation vesting the power in the Collector to punish an officer of the Petitioner's category did not amount to compliance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. 3. There is no dispute that the Petitioner's first appointment was to the grade of Revenue Inspector. The punishment admittedly reduced him to a lower rank than the original appointment. A Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in the case of Santosh Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa and Ors. 48 (1979) C.L.T. 17 took the view that the punishment impossibly in a disciplinary action could not be of reversion to a rank lower than the initial recruitment itself. The State Government accepted the decision of this Court and implemented it. 48 (1979) C.L.T. 17 took the view that the punishment impossibly in a disciplinary action could not be of reversion to a rank lower than the initial recruitment itself. The State Government accepted the decision of this Court and implemented it. We see no justification to take a different view in the instant case. The second contention raised by the Petitioner must accordingly succeed. 4. In the second show cause notice (Annexure f), the Petitioner was called upon in the notice to show cause against the punishment (Annexure 6). The Petitioner was told: In the departmental proceedings drawn up against you under District Office Memo No. 4, (3) dated 4-1-1974, the findings of the Inquiring Officer (copy enclosed) on the charges of unauthorised absence from Government duty have been considered and accepted. I propose to inflict upon you the punishment of reduction in rank to the next lower grade of Revenue Collection Moharir and hereby call upon you to show cause, if any by 18-1-1975 as to shy the aforesaid punishment should not be inflicted on you. In the order impeding the punishment in Annexure 8, the Collector stated: After perusal of the findings of the Inquiring Officer and all relevant documents on the departmental proceedings drawn up against Sri Babaji Ch. Rout, R. I., Anandapur Tahasil (now under suspension) in District Office Memo No. 44(3) dated 4-1-1974, I am satisfied that Sri Rout did not behave with a sense of responsibility and is unsuitable to discharge the responsibilities of the post of R. I.. He has also been punished in the past with stoppage of increment but that does not seem to have brought a bout any change in his performance or attitude towards his job. I, therefore, order his reduction to the rank of R.C.M. with effect from the date.... The past conduct has thus been utilised while considering the quantum of punishment though the Petitioner had never been put to notice that the same would be taken into account. It is not known as to what the punishment would have been if past conduct had not been taken into account. In fact, imposition of a major punishment has been justified by taking the past conduct into account. It is not known as to what the punishment would have been if past conduct had not been taken into account. In fact, imposition of a major punishment has been justified by taking the past conduct into account. This certainly is not sustainable in the absence of the Petitioner being put to notice that past conduct was proposed to be taken into account and he was not told what the past conduct really was. 5. The writ application must in the circumstances succeed. We allow the application, vacate the punishment and direct that the Petitioner shall continue as Revenue Inspector without being affected by the impugned order and would be entitled to all service advantages as Revenue Inspector. The Petitioner shall have his costs of the proceedings, Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-. (one hundred). B.K. Behera, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed