JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - While functioning as an Assistant Teacher in the Capital High School, Unit-Ill, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner was proceeded against as per the charge-sheet ( Annexure-4) in a disciplinary proceeding for violation of the order of his transfer from that school to the High School at Badagada and for disobedience of the order of his superiors, The petitioner showed cause as per Annexure-5. Ultimately, his services were terminated by the order dated July 29. 1982, passed by the Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, as per Annexure-12. The period of absence from duty of the petitioner from March 11, 1980 to September 3, 1982, was treated to be extraordinary leave as per Annexure-13 Later a consolidated order was passed as per Annexure-15, terminating the services of the petitioner and treating the period of absence from duty as extraordinary leave. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. K. Patra the learned Additional Government Advocate. At the stage of hearing, the petitioner has pressed for quashing Annexures 12, 13 and 15 as illegal and unsustainable. 3. It is not a case where the petitioner had admitted the allegations made against him. Not even an enquiry was conducted into the allegations made against the petitioner after he showed cause and no statements were recorded. Rule 15 (4) of the Orissa Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1962 provides : "On receipt of the written statement of defence or, if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a board of inquiry or an inquiring officer for the purpose." Admittedly, this rule had not been complied with. Thus serious prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by the non-compliance of the rule relating to the enquiry into the allegations made against him and the petitioner was condemned unheard. 4. While passing the impugned order of termination, apart from considering the question of violation of the order of transfer, the Inspector Schools has recorded thus : "In response of the above letter, instead of assigning any satisfactory reasons you made representation dated 30. 6. 198 that you have nothing more to write than what you had written in your letter dt. 29. 6. 6. 198 that you have nothing more to write than what you had written in your letter dt. 29. 6. 1980 and used a language unparliamentary, unconstitutional and decorum lacking which defames the Inspector of Schools in alt respects. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is decided that your services are no longer required in exigency of public -service. Therefore, your services are hereby terminated with effect from the date after one month from the date of receipt of this order." Evidently, therefore, notice had been taken of some misconduct on the part of the petitioner in making a representation couched in improper language which showed lack of decorum on his part, although he had not been charged for it. Past conduct or conduct subsequent to the charges of which no notice is given to a delinquent officer cannot be considered while inflicting the punishment on him. A reasonable opportunity should be afforded to him to show cause against any past conduct or any conduct subsequent to the charges which the disciplinary authority proposes to rely on while inflicting the punishment. It that has not been done, as in the instant case, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the writ application and quash Annexures 12, 13 and 15. In the circumstances of the case, we would make no order as to the costs of this proceeding. G.B. Pattnaik, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed