JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhabua, in Civil Appeal no. 8-A of 1971 dated 1-12-1971 wherein the learned Judge interfered with the decision given by the Civil Judge Class II, Thandla, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that an order of dismissal passed against him, dated 21-1-1958 was bad and inoperative. ( 2. ) FACTS necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a forest-guard on 7-5-1955 by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Jhabua on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh in Petlawad range. But he was dismissed from service on 21-1-1958 by the Divisional forest Officer. According to the plaintiff-appellant, before this order of dismissal was passed, he was not given an opportunity of explaining his conduct as no notice to show cause was given to him nor any charge-sheet was given to him nor any enquiry was conducted before passing this order of dismissal. The defence of the respondent State was that it is true that the appellant was dismissed on 21-1-1958 but the reason for his dismissal was that earlier on 22-5-1952, the appellant was dismissed by the Divisional forest Officer, Ratlam on serious charges and that dismissal came in the way of re-employment of the appellant but the appellant, without disclosing that fact obtained his appointment on 7-5-1955 and when this fact was discovered, he was dismissed on that ground and it was contended that as these facts were facts borne out on record and were known to the appellant, it was not thought necessary either to give him a charge-sheet and enquire into the matter or to give him a notice to show cause. ( 3. ) THE learned trial Court, after considering the material evidence in the case which mostly was documentary, came to the conclusion that as admittedly no notice was given to the appellant-plaintiff nor he was given any opportunity, the order is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution and also in contravention of Rule 8 of the Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1950 as were in force then and, therefore, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. ( 4. ( 4. ) ON appeal, the learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the case would be covered under Rule 8 (1) (b) and, therefore, as no opportunity was given to the appellant, in the circumstances of the case, it would not be necessary and, therefore, held that the dismissal of the appellant was justified. It is on that ground that the learned Judge interfered with the decision of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. It is against this that the present second appeal has been preferred. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 8 was not gone into still the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice embodied in Article 311 of the constitution requires that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to show cause against his dismissal on the reasons on which the order of dismissal was passed and it would have been possible for the appellant to explain the circumstances and, if necessary, even to contend as to whether the previous dismissal was such which came in his way of further employment. It was also contended that clause (b) of Rule 8 (1) which the learned lower appellate Court considered will not be attracted in a case like this as that clause can only be attracted where, in the circumstances of the case, it is reasonably not practicable to hold an enquiry and that too only if the authority, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, comes to that conclusion. Nothing of this kind has been done in this case and it is not the stand of the State-defendant respondent that the enquiry was not practicable but the stand is that it was not thought necessary. Under these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the view taken by the learned lower appellate Court is not justified in view of the language of Rule 8 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. ( 6. Under these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the view taken by the learned lower appellate Court is not justified in view of the language of Rule 8 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. ( 6. ) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that on the facts of this case as the earlier dismissal was within the knowledge of the appellant and it was very clear from the earlier order of dismissal that it barred future employment, no useful purpose could have been served even if a notice to the appellant had been given and taking this in view the competent authority felt that it is not necessary to give a notice or to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 8. Alternatively, it was contended that as the earlier dismissal was a bar to future employment, it was open to the appointing authority to cancel the appointment when the earlier order was brought to his notice. He, therefore, contended that this order of dismissal would only mean a cancellation of the earlier order of appointment and in that event apparently the question of issuing a notice to show cause or holding an enquiry under Rule 8 will not be necessary. ( 7. ) IT is not in dispute that there was an order of dismissal of the appellant earlier i. e. on 22-5-1952. It is also not in dispute that subsequently he was appointed afresh and by the impugned order he was dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the earlier order of dismissal was on serious allegations and it was clearly an order of dismissal. It is also not in dispute that before passing of the impugned order neither any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 8 was conducted nor the appellant-plaintiff was given any notice nor he was told the reasons that his services were liable to be dismissed. It is, therefore, apparent that neither there was compliance with Rule 8 nor there was any notice to show cause to the appellant-plaintiff before an order of dismissal was passed. It is, therefore, apparent that neither there was compliance with Rule 8 nor there was any notice to show cause to the appellant-plaintiff before an order of dismissal was passed. It is also clear from the impugned order that it is not an order of cancellation of his appointment nor an order terminating the services simpliciter as it may have been open to the authority concerned to cancel the appointment or to say that as is now discovered that the earlier order of dismissal came in his way of further employment, an order of termination simpliciter could have been passed but admittedly the impugned order is neither an order of termination simpliciter nor an order of cancellation of appointment but is an order of dismissal based on misconduct. ( 8. ) IT is, therefore, clear that this order was passed without following the procedure laid down in Rule 8 and also without giving any notice to show cause or without following the principles of natural justice by telling the appellant that for the reasons stated in the order, he is liable to be dismissed and no opportunity was given to him to explain the circumstances alleged against him. In this view of the matter, therefore, the order could not be justified. The learned lower appellate Court considering Rule 8 (l) (b)of the Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, felt that within the ambit of this subclause of Rule 8, it was open to the competent authority to pass an order of dismissal without following the procedure. Rule 8 (1) (b) reads :- "8 (1) Procedure for removal, dismissal or reduction in rank. Provided that this clause shall not apply- (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or" It is apparent that this rule contemplates cases where an enquiry is not possible as it is said that if, for the reasons to be recorded by the authority, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause then alone it could be dispensed with. Admittedly, it is not a case where there was any difficulty in giving an opportunity to the appellant to give a notice to show cause. It is also not the stand of the State that it was because of any difficulty that such a notice was not given. According to the defence set up by the State, it was considered not necessary and this clause (b) will not be attracted in such a situation. It is not in dispute that there is no clause of Rule 8 which permits the authority not to give a notice to show cause if it considers it not necessary, apparently because it will be a negation of the principles of natural justice which have been embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, clear that the learned lower appellate Court committed an error of law in interfering with the judgment of the trial Court and setting aside the decree passed in favour of the appellant. ( 9. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. It is, however, ordered that as the order of dismissal is being set aside apparently on the ground of non compliance of Rule 8 and the principles of natural justice, it may be open to the authorities concerned to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the rules or to take such suitable action which may be justified in law. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.