JUDGMENT 1. - This rule is directed against an order passed by the authorities concerning by which the order dated 27/13/73 passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner, and the order of Education Commissioner dated 15/7/75 was challenged. 2. The orders which are annexed as annexure 25 and 26 are that by which petitioner was punished with the stoppage of 2 inriments without cumulative effect and the order of suspension was not to be counted for the payment of emoluments and seniority was not affected. Appeal taken by the petitioner, however, failed. Hence, the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. All the question which is argued by Mr. Mridul Jain, appearing for the petitioner is that a charge sheet was made under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. But without reference to him it was changed to proceeding under rule 17 of the Rules. More over it is alleged that the copies of the report of the preliminary enquiry and the statements made in the preliminary enquiry, was not given to him. The petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the Department. In that view of the matter it was argued that the enquiry is not in accordance with law. 4. In a case reported in 1965 R. L. W. 153 it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that it is permissible for the disciplinary authority to proceed under Rule 17 of the Rules and for imposing minor penalties, although it has proceeded initially under Rule 16, but it is certainly necessary that if it proposes to change the procedure from Rule 16 to Rule 17, a clear notice to that effect must be given to the person concerned before proceeding under Rule 17. This was clearly not done. It is also true that there was non filing of report, the allegations of not giving the documents, not allowing the cross examination of the witnesses produced on behalf of the Department. These are un-controverted. Therefore it must be held that the rules of natural justice is violated. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order as well as the appellate order must be set aside, which I hereby do and there will be no orders as to costs. 6. These are un-controverted. Therefore it must be held that the rules of natural justice is violated. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order as well as the appellate order must be set aside, which I hereby do and there will be no orders as to costs. 6. This is without prejudice to any right the respondents might have initiated in accordance with law. *******