Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal and S.Shamsul Hasan JJ. 1. The petitioner, who was working as a Field Operator in Plane Protection Scheme under the Agriculture Department and at the relevant time was posted at Mokamah, has been discharged from his services by an order dated 10-12-1979, contained in Annexure 1, of the Plant Protection Officer (Respondent No. 3) in pursuance of a departmental proceeding started against him. 2. The petitioner had joined his service in the aforesaid department in July, 1955, and made incharga of the Mokamah Centre in the year 1971. On the night of 19/20 December, 197l, and of the 30th December, 19/1, certain theft took place in the Godown under the charge of the petitioner with respect to which a First Information Report was lodged and although the police submitted a final form in favour of the petitioner the Government thought to institute a departmental proceeding and ultimately passed the impugned order of his discharge. 3. Various arguments were raised on behalf of the petitioner, namely, that the enquiry was held behind his back and certain papers were not supplied on which account he could not file an effective show cause, the ground which ultimately has prevailed, upon us is that based upon Clause (ii) of Rule 166 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, which provides that after the authority competent to impose penalty has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the accused officer should be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiring authority and be called upon to show cause within two weeks against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted. In short, notwithstanding the amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution of India this provision of the State Rule still demands the giving of the second notice against the proposed penalty, Admittedly this procedure has not been followed in this case. 4. Mr. C. K. Sinha, learned Government pleader No. IV, who appeared on behalf of the State, contended that this rule now must be deemed to be non est in view of the constitutional amendment. It is difficult to accept this contention, inasmuch as, notwithstanding the amendment of the constitution, there is no bar for employer to give additional benefits or lay down any particular procedure which being not in conflict with the constitutional provisions. It is difficult to accept this contention, inasmuch as, notwithstanding the amendment of the constitution, there is no bar for employer to give additional benefits or lay down any particular procedure which being not in conflict with the constitutional provisions. The further protection of a second show cause notice cannot be held to be in any way derogatory to the constitutional provisions. On the other hand, it confers an additional advantage on the employees of the State Government and in our opinion there is no bar for maintaining this privilege inspite of the amendment of the constitution. We, therefore, allow this application and set aside the impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, with liberty to the respondent concerned to issue a second show cause notice against the proposed penalty to be inflicted upon the petitioner and to pass fresh order thereafter in accordance with law. As a consequence, the order of appellate authority contained in annexure 7, confirming the impugned order (annesure 1) is also quashed. In the circumstances, we shall make no order as to costs.