JUDGMENT : 1. At the sunset of his service when the petitioner was expecting a peaceful retirement in March, 2018, in an otherwise unblemished career he found himself embroiled in a controversy over inadequate courtesies extended to the members of the Public Accounts Committee, Jharkhand. After his appeal against the penalty order dated 02.02.2016 was dismissed by an order dated 03.03.2017, he has approached this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was appointed on 25.02.1986 as Child Development Project Officer, was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa on 17.04.2015. In connection to the forthcoming visit of Public Accounts Committee, Jharkhand on 09.01.2016 at Garhwa, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order on 05.01.2016, where under the petitioner was assigned some responsibility. It appears that on complaints made by the members of the Committee, an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner, Palamau Division and a report was submitted on 15.01.2016. There were complaints of inadequate water supply, non-availability of blanket and not providing food of their choice. It was rumoured that some of the members of the Committee were in drunken condition. The Committee consisted of Chairman and six Hon'ble members besides six officers. In all the delegation consisted of about 30-35 persons, and for accommodating them rooms were booked in hotel. Allegation against the petitioner is that when the Deputy Commissioner informed him about the complaints received from one of the members namely, Dr. Irfan Ansari he did not visit the circuit house. 3. Pursuant to order dated 25.08.2017, original record of the case was produced in the Court on 29.08.2017. Order dated 29.08.2017 records that before penalty order dated 02.02.2016 was passed no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Irfan Ansari he did not visit the circuit house. 3. Pursuant to order dated 25.08.2017, original record of the case was produced in the Court on 29.08.2017. Order dated 29.08.2017 records that before penalty order dated 02.02.2016 was passed no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Rule 55A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 reads as under: “Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 55, no order imposing the penalty specified in clauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of rule 49 (other than an order based on facts which led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or by a Court Martial, or an order superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the ground of his unfitness for that post) 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. Provided that the requirements of this rule may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived where there is difficulty in observing them and where they can be waived without injustice to the officer concerned.” 4. It is not in dispute that before a minor penalty can be inflicted upon a government servant, Rule 55A mandates a show cause notice to the government servant. Penalty order dated 02.02.2016 is founded on the facts recorded in report dated 15.01.2016, a copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, unaware of the charges against him when suffered the punishment of 'censure', preferred an appeal. A perusal of appeal memorandum would disclose that one of the grounds taken by him is that no show cause notice was issued to him. Still, the appellate authority without adverting to the aforesaid plea raised by the petitioner has dismissed the appeal. The least the appellate authority could have done was to advert to the plea raised by the petitioner and record its own finding on the defence raised by the appellant government servant. Still, the appellate authority without adverting to the aforesaid plea raised by the petitioner has dismissed the appeal. The least the appellate authority could have done was to advert to the plea raised by the petitioner and record its own finding on the defence raised by the appellant government servant. The report submitted by the Commissioner records that in the circuit house there is acute shortage of employees; there is no permanent employee and cook and assistant cooks have been employed on daily wages and cleaning in the circuit house is done by cleaners provided by Municipality. Not only that, the daily wagers are not paid minimum wages fixed by the Government of Jharkhand. 5. As noticed above, only allegation against the petitioner was that he did not visit the circuit house in the night when complaint of inadequate management was received by the Deputy Commissioner. In the above facts, without adverting to the plea, "whether not providing adequate courtesy to the members of Public Accounts Committee would amount to misconduct or not", the impugned orders dated 02.02.2016 and 03.03.2017 are found liable to be quashed. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself. Once recommendation of the Commissioner in its report dated 15.01.2016 and the findings recorded therein are examined in the context of the above facts, it becomes apparent that the decision making process was erroneous. The show cause notice dated 18.11.2016 issued to the petitioner, after punishment of 'censure' was imposed upon him, would not cure the foundational defect in the penalty order dated 02.02.2016. 6. Viewed thus, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 02.02.2016 and 03.03.2017 are quashed.