JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/appellant against the judgment dated 31st March, 2010 passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No.66 of 2009 (JET), whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by holding that the dismissal order passed by the respondent is lawful and not bad in law. 2. The fact appearing is that the appellant was working as Carpenter in Xavier's School at Bokaro Steel City. One of the sweepers of the school, namely, Ingetia Soren raised allegation that the appellant has committed rape on her while she was sweeping in a class room of primary school building. The occurrence was witnessed by one of the staff, namely, Rama Rao, who reported the matter to the Principal. Thereafter, the appellant as well as victim were called in the office. The victim-Ignetia Soren had given in writing that the appellant committed rape on her. She had also filed a criminal case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, being Mahila P.S. Case No.3 of 2008. The appellant was charge sheeted and departmental enquiry was initiated. At conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and submitted his report to the Management for awarding punishment. 3. After considering the serious allegation against the appellant, the Management of the school had decided to dismiss him from service and, accordingly, vide Letter No.212/2009 dated 19th September, 2009 punishment order was passed by dismissing him from service. 4. The appellant filed an application against his dismissal before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, but did not get favour and the application filed by him stood dismissed after adjudication and hence this appeal. 5. It is submitted that on the basis of written report of Ignetia Soren, Mahila P.S. Case No.3 of 2008 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 497 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. The trial was conducted by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the appellant has been acquitted vide judgment dated 21st April, 2011. Furthermore, the victim-Ignetia Soren has not supported her contention before the Enquiry Officer, but even then the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 497 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. The trial was conducted by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the appellant has been acquitted vide judgment dated 21st April, 2011. Furthermore, the victim-Ignetia Soren has not supported her contention before the Enquiry Officer, but even then the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty. No second show cause notice before awarding punishment was served upon the appellant and the Respondent-Management of the school has arbitrarily awarded severe punishment against the appellant by dismissing him from service. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993)4 SCC 727 , followed by this Court in the case of Gokul Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2015(4) JBCJ 80 (HC). 6. Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that serious charge of committing rape and that too in the school premises has been levelled against the appellant. He was served with charge sheet and his reply was not found satisfactory and departmental proceeding was initiated. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and submitted enquiry report to the Management of the school for awarding punishment. It is further submitted that threatening was hurled by the appellant to the victim, which is apparent from her statement. Only because the appellant stood acquitted in criminal trial, that does not mean that he would be exonerated from the charge, which has been proved and found correct during enquiry. So far service of second show cause notice before awarding punishment is concerned, no such document is available on record. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and documents available on record. The main contention of the appellant is that before awarding severe punishment like dismissal he was not served with second show cause notice to put his stand. It was argued that non-serving of show cause notice and copy of the enquiry report before awarding punishment is violative of principle of natural justice as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the judgments cited above, second show cause notice was essential before awarding punishment and that does not appear to have been taken place. 9. 8. In view of the judgments cited above, second show cause notice was essential before awarding punishment and that does not appear to have been taken place. 9. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of, directing the Respondent-Management to serve a copy of the enquiry report by which the appellant has been held guilty, asking him to furnish cause as to why severe punishment should not be awarded. The second show cause notice shall be served within one month from today and the appellant shall not avoid receiving show cause notice. If possible, he may collect the same on any working day from the office of the school himself. The appellant shall file his reply within fifteen days from the date of receipt of second show cause notice and, thereafter, the Management shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. If the appellant then feels aggrieved, he may file afresh application for its adjudication before the Tribunal to a limited extent for deciding the issue of service of second show cause notice and awarding of punishment. The finding of the Tribunal to the extent of holding the appellant guilty stands upheld and rest of the finding stands set aside.