Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 21-4-1962, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, muzaffarpur (respondent No.3) as contained in Annexure-12. to the writ petition and also the crder, dated 18-5-1983 passed by the chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation (respondent No.2)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 verry 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 charge-sheeted 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 Unified 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 as he had already left his services, calling for his explanation does not appear 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, Mothihari submitted a charge-sheet 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) Tempering 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 charge-sheeet 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 whereof 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. 7. Although charge-sheeet 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 whereof 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. By a letter of the same date the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be 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. Thereafter 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 whereby and whereunder he was intimated that he has been discharged from services with retrospective effect i. e. , 1-12-1962. 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 Annexure-17 to the writ petition. 10. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised to fold contentions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the various explanations and show-causes 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 levelled against him. 11. From the impugned orders 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 abstair 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 or reduction shall be passed on a member of Service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or by a Court-Material)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 grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges or 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. It he so desires, or if the authority concerned so direct, an oral inquiry shall be held. At that 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 witnesses, 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 grounds thereof. This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds 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 ii 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 the respondent No.3 or the respondent No.2 gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by initiating a departmental 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 nor 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 issuance such a second show-cause notice was mandatory in natute 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. Petition allowed.