1. Petitioner, who was substantively holding the post of Jr. Assistant, was placed under suspension by Respondent No.4 on 27.09.1982. The same authority issued charge sheet on 15th of October, 1982. Petitioner filed writ petition, SWP No. 589/1982 wherein petitioner sought that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case and to inquire into the allegations, if it deemed fit or otherwise to exonerate the petitioner. This writ petition was disposed of on 02.02.1983 as withdrawn on the assurance of learned counsel for the respondents that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner is being expedited. One more writ petition SWP No.26/1984 was filed which was subsequently withdrawn on 03.07.1986. Thereafter SWP No. 1159/88 was filed which was decided by the Court on 16.04.1998, giving liberty to the respondents to complete the inquiry within three months from the date copy of the order is served on them. It was also provided in the said judgment that the petitioner’s grievance in respect of charge sheet is left open and petitioner was given liberty to agitate it again in case he would feel aggrieved of the findings of respondent No.1 with regard to the inquiry. Government Order No.938-Edu of 1999 dated 09.07.1999 was issued which referred to judgment dated 16.04.1998 passed in SWP No.26/84. On the recommendations of inquiry officer Government ordered for inflicting punishment on the petitioner which is reproduced as under: Government of Jammu and Kashmir School Education Department. Subject: Writ petition No.26/84 titled Mushtaq Ahmad v/s State and others and OWP No.1157/88. Reference: Director General Youth Services & Sports. D.O.No.DG-YSS/Writ-40/3653 dated 9.4.1999 Government Order No.938-Edu of 1999 Dated 09.07.1999 In continuation of order No.DYSS/112-115 dated 12-4-1984, issued by Director, Youth Services and Sports, under which Shri Mushtaq Ahmad, Jr. Assistant was reinstated in compliance with High Court Order dated 16-4-1998 passed in W.P.No.26/84 and as recommended by the Enquiry Officer, it is hereby ordered that: i/ Period of suspension of Sh.Mushtaq Ahmad Jr. Asstt. be treated as leave of whatever kind dut to him; ii/ embezzled amount be recoverd from him immediately; iii/ the official shall not be allowed to handle accounts in future. iv/ the official is `censured’ for his misconduct and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. employee. By order of the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Deputy Secretary to Government School Education Department No.Edu/Writ/200/82 dated 9-7-1999 2. iv/ the official is `censured’ for his misconduct and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. employee. By order of the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Deputy Secretary to Government School Education Department No.Edu/Writ/200/82 dated 9-7-1999 2. Consequent upon the issuance of said Government Order Director General issued order vide endorsement No. 16th of July 1999, which is reproduced as under: "ORDER In pursuance to the provisions of GOvt. Order NO. 938-Edu of 99 dated 9.07.99 it is hereby ordered that: 1. the period of suspension of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Ex-Junior Asstt. Now working Sr. Assistant in District Youth Services & Sports Office Kupwara is treated on leave whatever kind due to the official. The formal sanction in this behalf shall be issued by this Directorate on verification of the title of the leave from his service book which will be delivered by the Divisional Youth and Sports Officer, Kashmir within three days after its collection from the concerned quarters. 2. an amount of Rs. 1592/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred and ninety two has been established by the Enquiry Officer to have been embezzled by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Ex-Junior Assistant now working as Sr. Assistant in his enquiry report shall be recovered from his pay by District Youth Services and Sports Officer, Kupwara from his pay in three (3) equal installments commencing from his salary of 7/1999. 3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad E-Junior Asstt. Now working as Sr. Assistant is debarred from handling accounts in any office henceforth wherever he is posted. 4. Mr. Mushtaq is censured for his misconduct and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. employee. The Divisional YS&SO Kashmir to whom a copy of Govt. order is being sent shall record under his seal and signature the contents of Govt. Order in toto for record and reference in the service book of Mr. Mushtaq compliance report of the order shall be submitted by the Divisional YS&SO Kupwara to this office latest by 5th August, 1999." Sd/ (S.S.Ali) IPS Director General No:DG-YSS/Estt-Writ/9437-48 dated 16-7-99 3. order is being sent shall record under his seal and signature the contents of Govt. Order in toto for record and reference in the service book of Mr. Mushtaq compliance report of the order shall be submitted by the Divisional YS&SO Kupwara to this office latest by 5th August, 1999." Sd/ (S.S.Ali) IPS Director General No:DG-YSS/Estt-Writ/9437-48 dated 16-7-99 3. It is these two orders, which are called in question in this writ petition, inter alia on the grounds that the inquiry was initiated by incompetent authority; the petitioner was not provided opportunity of defending his case and explaining his position; proceedings have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. 4. Respondents have filed reply affidavit/objections in which both the orders have been defended. It is pleaded that the action taken was confirmed by the competent authority by issuing Government Order No. 1753-Edu of 1983 dated 26.10.1983. At para 15 of the objections respondents have admitted the factum of disposal of SWP No. 1159/88 by this Court vide judgment dated 16.04.1998. It is also pleaded that the challenge cannot be thrown to the actions initiated by the respondents at this belated stage. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 35 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for short "the Rules of 1956") and submitted that as the minor penalty has been imposed on the petitioner so it was a duty cast upon the respondents-competent authority to provide the petitioner an adequate opportunity of making representation against the proposed penalty. Learned counsel submitted that the safe guards provided in rule 35 of the Rules of 1956 have been treated in cruel disregard, in as much as, no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to make a representation against proposed penalty. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the orders impugned in this petition stand vitiated. Learned counsel also submitted that the inquiry officer had also indicted one Gulshan Ara but she has not been subjected to any punishment and thus petitioner has been discriminated against and on this score also the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the orders impugned in this petition stand vitiated. Learned counsel also submitted that the inquiry officer had also indicted one Gulshan Ara but she has not been subjected to any punishment and thus petitioner has been discriminated against and on this score also the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been made to suffer from the year 1982 without any just and lawful action by the respondents. 7. Mr. Alla-ud-din, learned Dy.AG made outright efforts to defend the impugned orders. Learned counsel while referring to objections filed by the respondents submitted that before passing the impugned orders there has been total compliance of mandate of rule 30 and 35 of the Rules of 1956. Learned counsel submitted that writ petition is misconceived and merits dismissal, in as much, as the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules but petitioner opted not to participate. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the writ petition merits dismissal. 8. It is specifically pleaded in the writ petition that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing of the impugned orders. The perusal of the writ petition and the reply affidavit filed by the respondents reveal that the pleadings of the petitioner, which are specific, have not been controverted. What would emerge from such type of pleadings is that the contention so raised is admitted to be correct. The punishment which has been inflicted on the petitioner is minor punishment in terms of rule 30 of the rules of 1956. Rule 30 of the rules of 1956 provides that the penalty, mention whereof has been made in the said rule, may for good or sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on members of a service. The relevant part of rule 30 is reproduced as under : "Punishment: - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon members of a service namely-......." 9. The relevant part of rule 30 is reproduced as under : "Punishment: - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon members of a service namely-......." 9. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1956 provides that without prejudice to provisions of rule 33, no order imposing the penalty specified in clause (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of rule 30 on any Government servant to whom these rules are applicable shall be passed unless he had been given an adequate opportunity of making representation, that he may desire to make, and it has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1956 is reproduced as under: "35. Without prejudice to provisions of rule 33, no order imposing the penalty specified in clause (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of rule 30 on any Government servant to whom these rules are applicable shall be passed unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation, that he may desire to make any such representation if any, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. 10. Perusal of rule 30 of the Rules of 1956 reveals that any penalty, mention whereof has been made in the said rule, can be inflicted for good and sufficient reasons. Thus, when any punishment is to be imposed in accordance with rule 30 and 35 of the Rules of 1956 that punishment can be imposed for only good and sufficient reason. The competent authority is, thus, under statutory obligation to record good and sufficient reasons for inflicting any of the punishment provided in the said rules. Perusal of the impugned orders reveal that no good and sufficient reasons is recorded and even the mention of the words and expressions are not used in said orders. The impugned orders, thus, suffer the consequence of non-compliance with the mandate as contained in rule 30 of rules of 1956. 11. Admittedly the minor punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that before inflicting such punishment the petitioner has been afforded opportunity to make representation. The petitioner has been deprived of right to make representation against the proposed penalty and has been deprived of his statutory right to explain his position and defend himself. 11. Admittedly the minor punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that before inflicting such punishment the petitioner has been afforded opportunity to make representation. The petitioner has been deprived of right to make representation against the proposed penalty and has been deprived of his statutory right to explain his position and defend himself. The purpose of providing such opportunity to a delinquent official is to enable him to satisfy the authority that the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon him may not be warranted to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. A duty is cast on the competent authority to take into consideration such representation before passing of the order. As petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment his valuable statutory right has been taken away and in process the orders impugned in this petition could have not been passed, as before consideration of such representation no such order can be passed. The impugned orders are rendered illegal for the infringement of safe guards as contained in rule 30 and 35 of the Rules of 1956. 12. For the above stated reasons this petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) By issuance of writ of certiorari orders impugned No.938-Edu of 1999 dated 09.07.1999 and No.DG-YSS/Estt/Writ/9437-48 dated 16.07.1999, are quashed. (b) By issuance of a writ of mandamus, respondents, if they choose to proceed further in the matter, are directed to comply with rule 30 and 35 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. In case the respondents are inclined to proceed in the matter then the entire matter shall be taken to its final conclusion within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is served on them. It is further provided that in case of non-compliance as above, the respondents will be debarred from proceeding in the matter. Disposed of.