JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the penalty order contained in Memo No. 3373 dated 6.12.2008 (Annexure-5) whereby punishment of censure has been inflicted upon the petitioner for the financial year 2006-07. Challenge has also been thrown to the appellate order dated 9.10.2015 (Annexure-9) rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 6.9.1973 in the Water Recourse Department. While the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer, Planning and Investigation Division No.III at Ranchi, a show cause notice, on the basis of the letter issued by the Superintending Engineer, Planning and Investigation Circle, Ranchi, was issued on 22.11.2006, making allegation against him as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him for not singing the enquiry report of the flying squad though it was signed by his other three colleagues. The petitioner replied the show cause notice explaining on one or the other grounds, the charge was absolutely baseless and he was fit to be exonerated of the charges. However, the Superintending Engineer, Planning and Investigation Circle, reported by letter dated 12.7.2007 that he never made any allegation against this petitioner. Thereafter, without initiation of departmental proceeding, punishment of Censure was inflicted upon the petitioner to be entered into the financial year 2006-07. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate order dated 9.10.2015. Having no option left, the petitioner approached this Court. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Sneha Kumari, Advocate assiduously submits that the impugned punishment order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is without jurisdiction and the same is passed without affording any opportunity i.e. fresh notice for inflicting the punishment. As such, the impugned order can be termed as non-est in the eyes of law. Mr. Tandon draws the attention of this Court towards Rules 55-A and 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which talk of initiation of departmental proceeding and infliction of punishment. He argues that taking into consideration Rule-55A and 49, law is very clear that even in case of minor punishment, a fresh notice to that effect is required and to strengthen his argument, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh Vs. He argues that taking into consideration Rule-55A and 49, law is very clear that even in case of minor punishment, a fresh notice to that effect is required and to strengthen his argument, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 1983 PLJR 92 . Learned counsel argues that on this count itself, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, learned AC to S.C.-V, representing the respondents opposes the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that in case of minor punishment, second show cause is not required. From the show cause notice dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure-2) itself it demonstrates that a notice was sent to the petitioner regarding initiation of departmental proceeding as well as of suspension, as the reply was found not to be satisfactory. The minor punishment was inflicted and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of natural justice, rather, he was given ample opportunity to place his case and only after being satisfied, the respondents inflicted minor punishment which is wholly justified. Further learned counsel argues that the effect of minor punishment has now lost its force, as the same was for the year 2006-07 and as such, the writ petition itself has become infructuous. 6. Be that as it may, this Court having gone through the rival submissions of the parties fully satisfied that there is violation of principles of natural justice. As per the rules, the petitioner is entitled for fresh notice before imposing the punishment even a minor one. It is well settled that the specific notice must be given for the specific proposed punishment. From perusal of the notice, it appears that nowhere it has been mentioned that notice was issued regarding infliction of minor punishment as per Rule 55-A of the said Rules. This Court is fully satisfied that there has been a violation of cardinal principles of natural justice by not following the rules. No punishment cannot be awarded dehors the Rules. As such, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of censure is not tenable in the eyes of law. 7. In the facts of the case, writ petition stands allowed. This Court is fully satisfied that there has been a violation of cardinal principles of natural justice by not following the rules. No punishment cannot be awarded dehors the Rules. As such, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of censure is not tenable in the eyes of law. 7. In the facts of the case, writ petition stands allowed. The impugned punishment order as contained in Memo No. 3373 dated 6.12.2008 (Annexure-5), as also the appellate order dated 9.10.2015 (Annexure-9) are hereby quashed and set aside.