G.M. LODHA J.—This is a writ petition by Karan Singh who was Patwari in the services of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Karan Singh, has been dismissed on February 2, 1982 vide an order (Annexure I). 2. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner in the year 1975. In that inquiry, the two charges levelled against the petitioner and, after the inquiry they were found to be proved. 3. According to the inquiry report, the inquiry officer was of the opinion that the following two charges were proved — ^^;g gS fd dj.kflag iVokjh us iVokj e.My vUFkM+k esa iVokjh in ij dk;Z djrs gq, Jh Hkksikyflag o y{e.k flag jktiwr xzke cFkokM+k esa 1402@& :i;s olwy djds ml jkfk dk fl;kgk esas vey ugha djds vigj.k fd;kA 2- ;g gS fd Jh dj.kflag us jlhn la- 25752@14 dh r`rh; izfr Jh j?kqukFk oxSjg tkV ftudh vksj ls 10-06 iSls tek gq, Fks dks ugha nsdj vius ikl j[kh rFkk bl r`rh; izfr ij Åijh ys[ku djrs gq, vkjksi la[;k izFke esa of.kZr jkfk dk vadu djds Jh Hkksikyflag o y{e.kflag ds olwy kqnk 1402 :- dh mUgsa QthZ jlhn cukdj ns nhA bl izdkj Jh dj.kflag us Jh Hkksikyflag o y{e.kflag ds lkFk /kks[kk ?kM+h dhA 4. In the inquiry, the evidence of Laxman Singh, Raghunathsingh, Govind Singh and Sitaram was recorded on behalf of the department and the petitioner examined, himself, in defence. 5. After submitting the inquiry report by the inquiry officer, the Collector Bundi served a show cause notice (Ex. XIV). This notice is in Hindi language and the petitioner wants to interpret meaning that, it was a notice for removal only and not for dismissal of service. The exact words used are, ^^fuEu gLrk{kj drkZ us vLFkk;h :i ls vkidks jkT; lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fup; fd;k gSA** 6. Shri D.D. Bajaj, the teamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the show cause notice used the words, ^^lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fup; fd;k** it means that the petitioner has been removed and not dismissed, and the word used is removal in Hindi and not dismissal, the show cause notice, itself, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against the principles of law. In the alternative, it was also argued that on the merits of the case, as the department could not prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, nor it could prove that any such amount in dispute which was alleged to have been misappropriated or recovered from the cultivators concerned, which was due and any demand order was issued; the inquiry, itself, held to be void and illegal being against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and so the impugned order of dismissal, by a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, deserves to be set aside and quashed. 7. It was also argued that in spite of the application filed by the petitioner, the record was not summoned and the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was also not taken into consideration on account of being prejudiced and, no reasonable opportunity in defending himself was afforded to the petitioner which resulted in victimisation and harassment having irreparable and substantial loss. 8. Shri S.B. Mathur, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Bundi, controverted the above submissions of Shri Bajaj and, argued that notice to show cause was for dismissal and not for removal. Shri Mathur has further pointed out that the Hindi word," ^lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fup;* does not mean removal in the encyclopaedia but, dismissal is also equal to ^jkT; lsok ls i`Fkd djuk* 9. I have carefully considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the show cause notice served on the petitioner after the conclusion of the inquiry, it was mentioned that the petitioner would be removed from the services. As noted above, the Hindi words were, ^^vLFkk;h :i ls vkidks jkT; lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fup; fd;k gSA** However, in the final order, the petitioner has been dismissed. The order dated the 8th February, 1982 mentions the following words— ^^dj.kflag dks fnukad 8-2-1982 dks jkT; lsok ls cj[kkLr ¼fMlfel½ dj fn;k fn;k x;k gSA** 10. Obviously, the terminology used in the show cause notice and the final order is different. In Hindi Dictionary of Government & Educational words & Phrases by Prof. Dr. The order dated the 8th February, 1982 mentions the following words— ^^dj.kflag dks fnukad 8-2-1982 dks jkT; lsok ls cj[kkLr ¼fMlfel½ dj fn;k fn;k x;k gSA** 10. Obviously, the terminology used in the show cause notice and the final order is different. In Hindi Dictionary of Government & Educational words & Phrases by Prof. Dr. Raghu Vira (Second Edition-June, 1960— published by International Academy of Indian Culture New Delhi—16) the meaning of word dismissal at p. 529 reads as under : "dismissal 1 (from service) inP;qr f., inP;qfr djuk fu;qfDr f. (opp. of fu;qfDr) lsokfu;qfDr f. 2. Law vikLr djuk] viklr 3- mRltZu n. 4. (of a pupil) fudkyuk n., appointment and dismissal fu;qfDr vkSj fo;qfDr** 11. Shri Bajaj submitted that Meenakshi Hindi-English Dictionary by Dr. Brij Mohan & Dr. Badrinath Kapoor (First edition, 1980—Reprinted, 1981 —Meenakshi Prakash Begum Bridge, Meerut) at page 456, the following is relevant— "PRITHAK" (Prithak) adj. apart, separate, distinct; "PRITHAK PRITHAK", different; "PRITHAK KARNA" (i) to differentiate/separate; (ii) to remove; "PRITHAK KARNA" to keep away." 12. Shri Mathur then submitted that Legal Glossary of Government of India publication, 1979, in which at page 76, the word, dismiss has been mentioned as under :— "dismiss: 1. to send away or remove from office, employment or position "PADCHUT KARNA" 2. to reject "KHARIJ KARNA" 13. From the above, it would thus be seen that removal is according to the dictionary meaning, one of the species of the dismissal. The dismissal can mean removal but, removal simplicitor cannot mean dismissal. In the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the following major penalties are provided in R. 14— (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order; (iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension; (vi) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment; (vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment." 14. R. 14 of the Rules of 1958 makes it clear that the rule making authority wanted to make distinction between removal and dismissal. The principal distinction has not been left with to be caused or worked out by the interpreting authorities but really the rule making authority, itself, had said that removal would not disqualify a person from further employment but, dismissal would be a disqualification from future employment. Thus, the distinction is significant and important. 15. In view of the above, since, the show cause notice used the word, "PRITHAK KARNA" only, it would be removal simplicitor. As removal and dismissal are two different terms in R. 14 of Rules of 1958 having different implications, it is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Mathur, appearing for the respondents, because in dictionary meanings the dismissal included removal, therefore, when the show cause notice to the petitioner was issued, bonafidely, word dismissal was contemplated. 16. I have got no doubt that, by the show cause notice only penalty of removal was contemplated. This is also obvious from the terminology used in the show cause notice in contradistinction to the terminology used in the dismissal order, where expressly, the words, "BARKHAST" (dismiss) was used. It may be a case of inadvertence or mistake but, a civil servants future is seriously jeopardised by dismissal and, therefore, after giving a notice of removal, the dismissal cannot be ordered unless the departmental authorities changes its mind and gives second show cause notice in supersession of the earlier notice which has not been done in the instant case, so far. 17. Obviously, in the instant case, notice to show cause was for removal and the penalty imposed was of dismissal. It is true that both of them are major penalties and the departmental authority was competent to impose this penalty also. However, before doing so, since in the notice, removal has been mentioned and dismissal is undoubtedly an aggravated form of punishment because it debars a civil servant from future employment, the departmental authority could not have ordered dismissal. 18. So far as the submission of Shri Bajaj, that it is a case of no evidence and, therefore, the charges against the employee has not been proved is concerned; I am convinced that the inquiry report produced proceeds on cogent grounds, and the record produced is self explanatory to have proved the charges. 18. So far as the submission of Shri Bajaj, that it is a case of no evidence and, therefore, the charges against the employee has not been proved is concerned; I am convinced that the inquiry report produced proceeds on cogent grounds, and the record produced is self explanatory to have proved the charges. One may agree or disagree with the findings, but it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence." 19. I am, therefore, convinced that the department authority was justified in issuing a show cause notice and the petitioner cannot claim of being exonerated in the instant case, However, since the show cause notice was only for removal and the final order was for dismissal, the dismissal order cannot be sustained in law. 20. The result of the above discussion is that the order of the dismissal is set aside. However, it would be open to the departmental authority to either impose penalty of removal in terms of the show cause notice after the consideration of the reply of the show cause notice objectively and fairly or, issue a fresh show cause notice for dismissal and then obtain and call for explanation cum reply and after considering the reply, a fresh order may be passed, if necessary. 21. As I am setting aside the order of dismissal (Annexure 1) dated the 8th February, 1982, the result would be that the petitioner would be entitled to the reinstatement but, it would be open to the disciplinary or departmental authority to keept him under suspension during the period of proceedings which may be taken now in pursuance of this judgment and the question of salary and his all other consequential benefits as prayed for, would be decided along with the final order objectively in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules or the relevant law. 22. Consequently, the writ petition is partially accepted, as indicated above, without any order as to costs.