Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.4.1969 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Circle Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 3) and as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ petition as also the order dated 18.5.1983 passed by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation (respondent no.2) and as contained in Annexure 17 to the writ petition. 2. By reason of the aforementioned orders the petitioner has been removed from services. 3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 4. The petitioner who at the material time had been working as work Sarkar in the Minor Irrigation Department in the State of Bihar was chargesheeted inter alia on the ground that he had been unauthorisedly absent from duties. It appears by an order dated 14th February, 1964, the Executive Engineer of United Minor Irrigation Division, Motihari, in his letter addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Muzaffarpur alleged that the petitioner has been absconding from duty and as he had already left his services, calling for his explanation does not appears to be necessary as this will give him chance to place fabricated story to defend his case and as such merely a formal order of dismissal from duty therefore was considered necessary, However, the Executive Engineer, Unified Minor Irrigation Division, Motihari submitted a chargesheet against the petitioner proposing to remove him from service by his memo dated 20th March, 1964 The said memo is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 5. By reason of the aforementioned memo of charges the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for. (a) Absenting himself from duty without any application since October, 1962. (b) Tampering with attendance register, and (c) For putting initials on the dates, he was not present on duty. 6. The petitioner pursuant to the aforementioned show cause notice submitted his explanation on 28.3.1964 which is contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 7. Although chargesheet was issued by the Executive Engineer, at a later stage, the Superintending Engineer, by his letter dated 14.3.1969 directed the petitioner to clarify certain matters regarding his earlier show cause, pursuant where of the petitioner submitted his further explanation on 14th March, 1969. The said explanation dated 14th March, 1969 is contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The said explanation dated 14th March, 1969 is contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. By a letter of the same date the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not he discharged from services for the lapses mentioned therein. 8. The Petitioner submitted his show cause in obedience to the aforementioned direction on 25.3.1969 which is contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition. There after the Superintending Engineer by his letter dated 12.4.1969 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from services for the gross negligence. The said letter is contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The petitioner again filed his show cause on 14.4.1969 which is contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition. 9. Thereafter the petitioner received an order dated 21.4.1969 where by and where under he was intimated that he has been discharged from service with retrospective effect i.e.11.2.1962. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Patna by an order contained in a letter dated 18.5.1983 which is contained in Annexure17 to writ petition. 10. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two fold contentions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the various explanations and show cause filed by the petitioner from time to time and as referred to hereinbefore it would appear that the petitioner at all stages denied the charges leveled against him. 11. From the impugned order it is evident that the respondent No.3 looked into the attendance register and other documents behind the back of the petitioner without initiating any disciplinary proceeding therefore. The respondent no.3 purported to have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to argue his case so as to convince him that he did not abstain from his duties. 12. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was not found guilty in respect of two charges but he was found guilty for absenting himself from October, 1962. 13. 12. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was not found guilty in respect of two charges but he was found guilty for absenting himself from October, 1962. 13. Evidently, the requirement of law as contained in Rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has not been complied with Rule 55 of the said Rules reads as follows:- Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal of reduction shall be passed on a member of Service (other that an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a Court Martial) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The ground on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required to take within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority concerned so direct, an oral inquiry shall be held. At inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witness to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the ground thereof. This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him, All or any of the provisions of the rule may, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived, where there is a difficulty in observing exactly the requirement of the rule and those requirements can be waived without injustice to the person charged. The full prescribed in this rule need not be followed in the case of a probationer discharged in the circumstances described in Explanation 11 to rule 49. In such cases, it will be sufficient if the probationer is given an opportunity to show cause in writing against the discharge after being apprised of the grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and his reply duly considered before orders are passed.” 14. In view of the admitted position that neither Respondent No.3 no the respondent no. 2 gave an opportunity of hearing mental proceeding against him in terms of the aforementioned Rule, which is mandatory in nature the impugned orders are vitiated in law. 15. Further, it is evident that the impugned orders have been passed before the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 came into force and as such it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue a second show cause notice to him. 16. In this view of the matter the petitioner was also entitled to a second show cause notice as envisaged under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India (as it then stood) 17. From the records it does not appear not the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. State has been able to show that any such second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. 18. It is now well settled that before the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, came into force issuing of such a second show cause notice was mandatory in nature and non-service of such a notice vitiates the order of dismissal. It further appears that the respondent No.3 has committed a gross illegality in passing an order of discharge as against the petitioner with retrospective effect. Law does not contemplate passing of an order of discharge with retrospective effect. 19. It further appears that the respondent No.3 has committed a gross illegality in passing an order of discharge as against the petitioner with retrospective effect. Law does not contemplate passing of an order of discharge with retrospective effect. 19. Taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case I am left with no option but to allow this writ petition. 20. In the result this writ petition is allowed and Annexures 12 and 17 are hereby quashed but without any order as to costs. Application allowed.