JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner was working as L.D.C. with the Urban Improvement Trust Department, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the UTT). He was issued a charge sheet under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 3.5.1986 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules) for major punishment. He was also placed under suspension on 17.10.1986 vide Annexure 6 which suspension order was revoked vide Annexure 7 dated 15.3.1989. It is stated that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet with the Police Station, Christiangan), Ajmer. However, for the reasons that no record had been made available to the police officer, the FIR itself was dropped as per order Annexure 8 passed by learned District Judge, Ajmer. 2. The charge sheet Annexure 1 was proceeded in disciplinary proceedings and as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. An objection is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witness objection Chand Sharma was only the person who is said to have supported the inquiry by producing evidence in another inquiry which had been conducted by him and which inquiry had become the part of the present disciplinary inquiry. It is also stated that even thou, he had asked for the report submitted by Mr. Mahesh Chand Sharma, neither the report was given to the petitioner nor the statement. The petitioner had given his defence statemeht. 3. The Inquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty and on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was punished with stoppage of three Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect vide order Annexure 17 dated 15.2.1991. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order Annexure 17 before the Appellate Authority and one of the grounds apart from other grounds as put forward by him was that the copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to him and therefore, he had been denied the opportunity of pleading his case. The Appellate Authority instead of deciding the appeal of the petitioner had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Rules on 13.8.1991 to the petitioner to deposit the amount involved in the charge sheet i.e. Rs. 5,583/- (Annexure 19-A) which amount was deposited by the petitioner under protest. 4. The Appellate Authority instead of deciding the appeal of the petitioner had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Rules on 13.8.1991 to the petitioner to deposit the amount involved in the charge sheet i.e. Rs. 5,583/- (Annexure 19-A) which amount was deposited by the petitioner under protest. 4. The Appellate Authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner had taken a decision to enhance the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect into the order of termination vide order Annexure 20 dated 23.9.1991. The petitioner had challenged both these orders by way of filing a writ petition before this Court that is being S.B.C.W.P. No. 6006/1991 which was finally decided by this Court and was allowed on 20th December, 1991 by setting aside the impugned orders. The petitioner was reinstated in service and the Appellate Authority was directed to proceed with the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with rules. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure 21. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the petitioner was reinstated back in service. The Appellate Authority had issued a show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment vide Annexure 25 dated 20.10.1992 and the petitioner was asked to attend the office for personal hearing on the point of enhancement of the punishment. An objection had been taken that in case the punishment was to be enhanced in such situation, the Appellate Authority was duty bound to mention in the show cause notice Annexure 25 about the nature of punishment which was proposed to be imposed against the petitioner. From the facts, it is clear that on the filing of the appeal against the order of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, a direction had been given by the Appellate Court to the UIT to terminate the service of the petitioner without complying with the law and on the termination having been effected by the respondents, the same was challenged in the writ petition 6006/1991. 5. Even though, number of grounds have been taken in the writ petition but the impugned order (Annexure-27) dated 28.12.1992, relating to the termination of service is challenged only on the ground that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have issued a show cause notice by proposing a specific punishment in Annexure-25. 5. Even though, number of grounds have been taken in the writ petition but the impugned order (Annexure-27) dated 28.12.1992, relating to the termination of service is challenged only on the ground that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have issued a show cause notice by proposing a specific punishment in Annexure-25. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of (1) Sawai v. The State of Rajasthan. WLN 1981, 280 , wherein it was held that it was not open to the Competent Authority to pass an order of a graver punishment of dismissal of service when in the order of issuing a show cause notice, the Competent Authority was of the opinion for lesser punishment as mentioned in the show cause notice. Relying upon a Judgment rendered in the case of (2) Govind Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1974 SLR 74, wherein it was observed that if there is no communication at all, in the show cause notice of the fact whether a lesser or a heavy punishment is to be imposed, the show cause notice is not in accordance with law. Rule 30(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, makes it incumbent upon the Appellate Authority not to impose any enhanced penalty unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such proposed enhanced penalty. 6. Rule 30(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, makes it incumbent upon the Appellate Authority not to impose any enhanced penalty unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such proposed enhanced penalty. 6. The Relevant Rule 30(2) of the CCA Rules, is reproduced as under:- Rule 30(2):-"In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14, the appellate authority shall consider: (a) Whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (b) Whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established; (c) Whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order; and (d) Whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate (and after giving a personal hearing to the Government Servant to explain his case, if he desires so) and after consultation with the Commission if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass order: (i) Setting aside, reducing confirming or enhancing the penalty; or (ii) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; Provided that: (i) The appellate authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose; and (ii) No order imposing any enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty; and From the bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is very dear that if any show cause notice is issued for enhancement of the punishment by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, is bound to specify the proposed penalty so that the delinquent official would be able to reply the same in accordance with the penalty proposed. 7-8. In the present case, in (Annexure-25), dated 20.10.1992, the appellate authority, has not proposed any punishment and only has asked the delinquent official to explain by way of personal hearing as to why the penalty be not enhanced. 7-8. In the present case, in (Annexure-25), dated 20.10.1992, the appellate authority, has not proposed any punishment and only has asked the delinquent official to explain by way of personal hearing as to why the penalty be not enhanced. It has not been passed in consonance with the mandatory regulations to proviso to Rule 30 and in such situation, the mandatory rules are violated.9. For the reasons mentioned above, the order (Annexure-27), removing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is quashed. 10. The submission of counsel for petitioner that even though the order annexure-17 is to be quashed for the reason that copy of enquiry report had not been supplied to him and in view of the case of (3) Union of India vs. Mohd. Ranijan Khan 1991 (1) SCC 558 and also the case of (4) Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad and ors. Vs. B. Karunakaran and ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the principle of natural justice has been violated and the order annexure-17 cannot be sustained. There is no merit in the submission of counsel for petitioner as the law laid down by Apex Court is not to be made applicable retrospectively for the actions already taken. For the above said reasons and discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure-27), dated 28.12.1992 is quashed and set-aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all other consequential benefits to which he might have been entitled to the time, had the impugned order is not passed. Petition allowed. *******