JUDGMENT A.S. Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of U. P. was placed under suspension on 27-4-1971 in consequence of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in respect of certain acts and omissions committed by him during the period between January 1963 and April 1965 while he was posted at Kalagarh, district Bijnor in the Camp Management Division of Ramganga Project. This suspension was followed by an enquiry proceeding against the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) constituted under the Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). On a finding submitted by the Tribunal, a notice dated 27-4-1971 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 10 (1) of the Rules to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The finding of the Tribunal as well as the notice issued to the petitioner on the basis of this finding suffered from infirmities inasmuch as the finding of the Tribunal did not take into account the views of the assessor and the notice was not accompanied by a finding containing the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding punishment proposed in that finding. This notice was followed by an order dated 6-1-1973 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner then challenged this order of dismissal by means of a writ petition (No. 1805 of 1973). This writ petition was allowed on 3-12-1976 and the aforesaid order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed not on merits but on the abovementioned two technical grounds, namely, (1) the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding penalty was not communicated to him which had introduced an infirmity in the enquiry proceedings itself and (2) the proceedings of the Tribunal were not complete when it had submitted its finding to the State inasmuch as the assessors had not given their views till then and that finding was submitted by the Tribunal without having considered the views of the assessors in manifest disregard of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules. 2. On 31-12-1977, the State Government under Rule 49 (A) (4) of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules decided to hold fresh enquiry into the charges against the petitioner by placing him under suspension with effect from 6-1-1973 onwards. 2. On 31-12-1977, the State Government under Rule 49 (A) (4) of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules decided to hold fresh enquiry into the charges against the petitioner by placing him under suspension with effect from 6-1-1973 onwards. A notice dated 15-2-1978 was served on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. With this notice complete finding of the Tribunal dated 6-1-1971 was also enclosed. The petitioner sent a reply dated 21-8-1978 to this show-cause notice. It transpires that subsequent to the issue of show-cause notice dated 15-2-1978, the Government took a decision to refer the matter again to the Tribunal for enquiry and report. The petitioner then filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire proceedings pending against him. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that after the order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973, the respondents were not competent to issue another show-cause notice to him on 15-2-1978 on the basis of the recommendations sent by the Tribunal as the same was held in the earlier writ petition to be invalid and non- est. After sending that notice, the respondents are also not entitled to direct the Tribunal to initiate further enquiry against the petitioner without first recalling the show-cause notice dated 15-2-1978 as Rule 14 (4) of the Transitory Provisions of the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Second Amendment) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Transitory Rules) has no application in this case. 3. After considering the above contentions, we find ourselves unable to agree with any one of them. This Court in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973 had quashed the order of dismissal of the petitioner merely on two grounds referred to above. The first ground was that the Tribunal had sent its recommendation regarding its finding without considering the views of the assessor as required under Rule 9 (1) of the Rules and consequently the findings were "invalid and non-est". The result of this finding is that the disciplinary proceeding before the Tribunal started against the petitioner is still pending and by the above finding this Court had not exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. 4. The result of this finding is that the disciplinary proceeding before the Tribunal started against the petitioner is still pending and by the above finding this Court had not exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. 4. On receipt of a reference from the Governor under Rule 4 of the Rules, the Tribunal commences disciplinary proceedings against the charged officer for enquiring into the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges levelled against him. The Tribunal then records a finding only after the enquiry proceedings are completed. As is clear from the language of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, the enquiry before the Tribunal comes to an end only after it records its findings after the completion of the proceedings. Rule 9 (1) of the Rules reads as under :- "9 (1). After completing its proceedings the Tribunal shall make a record . of the case in which it shall state the charges, the explanation, its own findings and the views of the assessor. It shall, where satisfied the punishment be imposed, also formulate its recommendation about punishment." The words "after completing its proceedings" in this Rule make it abundantly clear that the recording of finding of the Tribunal is to follow after the completing of the proceedings before it. This Rule further provides the manner in which this finding is to be recorded and the facts that are to be mentioned in it. Till this finding is recorded, the proceeding before the Tribunal cannot be said to have "concluded". After completing its proceedings the Tribunal has to conclude it in the manner provided in Rule 9 (1) of Rules. In this case, after completing its proceedings the Tribunal had no doubt recorded a finding. This Court in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1975 held that finding to be invalid and non-est " in consequence whereof the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to be yet concluded. For the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal, its finding is a sine qua non. Therefore, the right of the Government to get the enquiry concluded by asking the Tribunal to go into the matter afresh cannot be disputed. 5. The above right of the Government is also not affected by the second ground on account of which the order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973. Therefore, the right of the Government to get the enquiry concluded by asking the Tribunal to go into the matter afresh cannot be disputed. 5. The above right of the Government is also not affected by the second ground on account of which the order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973. The second ground related to an infirmity in the show-cause notice dated 27-4-1971 served on the petitioner before he was dismissed oh 6-1-1973 inasmuch as the finding enclosed with the notice did not contain the punishment recommended by it. 6. It is thus clear that the result of Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973 was that the enquiry before the Tribunal cannot be held to have concluded. It is no doubt true that after the decision in Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973 another notice was issued to the petitioner dated 15-2-1978 to show-cause against the punishment of dismissal proposed by that notice. A copy of this notice is Annexure I to the Counter-Affidavit. It is evident from a mere perusal of this notice that it was a misconceived one inasmuch as it was issued by the Authority concerned without closely reading and understanding the decision of Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973. This notice itself speaks that while issuing it the Authority concerned thought that the decision in the aforesaid writ petition was based only on one finding i. e. the recommendation of the Tribunal regarding punishment was not communicated to the petitioner when the show-cause notice was given to him before his dismissal. The authority concerned while giving this notice failed to notice further that the order of dismissal in the aforesaid writ petition was quashed on another ground also that the finding of the Tribunal forwarded to the Government was invalid and non est. Such a notice issued to the petitioner does not, therefore, stand in the way of the Government to direct the Tribunal to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings already pending with it. 7. We do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Rule 14 (4) of the Transitory Rules is not applicable in this case. The Transitory Rules were published in the U. P. Government Gazette Notification No. 2565/XXXIX-2 (7) 1970 dated 7-11-1975. 7. We do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Rule 14 (4) of the Transitory Rules is not applicable in this case. The Transitory Rules were published in the U. P. Government Gazette Notification No. 2565/XXXIX-2 (7) 1970 dated 7-11-1975. Rule 14 (4) of these Rules makes provision for being followed in disciplinary proceedings started under the old Rules but not concluded on the date when this Transitory Rules came into force. So on 15-2-1978 when the show-cause notice was given to the petitioner after the decision of Writ Petition No. 1805 of 1973, the disciplinary proceedings, as already seen above had not concluded against him. Therefore, the notice dated 15-2-1978 could not have been issued on that date. Such a notice could be issued only after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. When the disciplinary proceedings had itself not concluded, the notice dated 15-2-1978 had not the effect of concluding that enquiry. At the best it was a superfluous act of the Authority concerned having no bearing on the proceedings before the Tribunal. In that event, the proceedings were pending on 7-11-1975 i. e. on the date when the Transitory Rules had come into force. So the provisions of Rule 14 (4) will apply in this case. 8. Thus, none of the grounds raised in this writ petition justify the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which is not yet concluded and in which the Tribunal has to record a finding. In the circumstances already pointed out above, the Tribunal was justified in giving a notice to the petitioner before recording its finding. The writ petition, therefore, fails. It is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.