Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ application is pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a strict construction of the law and procedure regulating the departmental proceedings to submit that the charges were served upon the petitioner of alleged irregularities in the construction of Toilets in respect of which a show cause had been asked from him which he failed to reply. 3. By an order dated 5.10.1990 a proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950 was initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry report then came to be submitted which is on record at Annexure 5. This would exonerate the petitioner. It is submitted that having been exonerated there was no occasion for the respondents to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer and proceed in the matter afresh without notice to the petitioner of the reasons why fresh enquiry was decided to be held. It is furher alleged that fresh Enquiry Officer did not issue any notice to the petitioner or hold any departmental proceeding to the knowledge of the petitioner culminating into the order of punishment dated 8.6.1999 visiting him with (a) censure for the year 1989-90, and (b) stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. 4. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents would acknowledge the fact that a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed to re-hold an enquiry after exoneration of the petitioner in the previous enquiry as contained in the report at Annexure 6. The counter affidavit would simply state that the findings of the previous Enquiry Officer were "incomplete". The allegations of the petitioner that notwithstanding the enquiry report, the fresh Enquiry Officer did not associate the petitioner with the enquiry is not controverted. The contention of the petitioner that he was never served copy of the enquiry report or opportunity to show cause is likewise not denied. Learned Counsel for the respondents however sought to submit that what was imposed upon the petitioner was a minor punishment for which the procedure under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was required to be followed. Irrespective of the fact that nomenclature of Rule 55 was included by the respondents, the proceeding would essentially be under Rule 55A. Irrespective of the fact that nomenclature of Rule 55 was included by the respondents, the proceeding would essentially be under Rule 55A. The petitioner had adequate opportunity to present his case and which has been considered and therefore he cannot be said to have been prejudiced. 5. This Court finds that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is undoubtedly a minor punishment to which the procedure applicable under Rule 55A of the aforesaid Rules would apply. This Court however also finds that the respondents having option between Rules 55 and 55A of the aforesaid rules opted to initiate proceeding under the former rules. Having done so it would not be open to them to take shelter and contend that essentially the present proceeding was under Rule 55A after they have commenced a regular departmental enquiry leading to the submission of the enquiry report. In the circumstances, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner was exonerated. In the earlier enquiry report, he was never associated with the subsequent enquiry and copy of the same was never communicated to him muchless show cause or the proposed punishment, coupled with the fact that the counter affidavit would not disclose any justifiable reason for holding fresh enquiry in view of Annexure 6, this Court, holding that the impugned order at Annexure 1 is contrary to law. 6. As a result the writ application succeeds. Annexure 1 dated 8.6.1998 is hereby quashed. No orders as to cost.