JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:— Respondent Ram Ratan was employed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh Government. He was served with a charge-sheet dated March 6, 1969, in which he was accused on misconduct. Respondent refuted the charges. A departmental enquiry was held by the Divisional Forest Officer. Mr. Malhotra, in respect of the charges framed against the respondent. Charges of misconduct was held proved whereupon the punishing authority served respondent with a second show cause notice dated February 12, 1970, as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as it stood prior to its amendment by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. The dispute in this appeal centres around the construction of this notice No. E/1/2053 dated February 12, 1970, and its relevant portion may be extracted:

"....the Enquiry Officer has concluded in the report that he is guilty of the above mentioned charges. Hence as a result of the abovesaid charges having been established, why you shall not be imposed major penalty under the M. P. Civil Services Act?....

Why you will not be removed from the State service by imposing the above said punishment?

2. After the respondent replied to the notice the disciplinary-cum-punishing authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent. The respondent questioned the validity and correctness of the punishment in Civil Suit No. 227-A/73 filed by him in the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Court, Class II, Sabalgarh. The trial Court decreed the suit and set aside the order imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement and granted a declaration that respondent continues in service. On appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Second Additional District Judge, Morena, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the respondent. On appeal by the respondent to the High Court a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal of respondent and set aside the decree made by the District Judge and restored the one passed by the trial Court with the result that a declaration was granted that the respondent would continue in service till the date of his superannuation. Hence this appeal by special leave by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. The High Court was of the opinion that strict compliance with Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution along with R. 15 (4) (i) (b) of the M. P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (1966 Rules for short), must be insisted upon because it provides a safeguard against arbitrary removal from service of Government servants. Consistent with this approach and drawing sustenance from the decision of this Court in Union of India v. K. Rajappa Menon, (1969) 2 SCR 343 : (AIR 1970 SC 748) it was held that unless the disciplinary or competent authority tentatively determines to inflict a particular penalty and specifies the particular penalty to be inflicted on the delinquent Government servant, the show cause notice cannot be sustained without such a particular penalty being specified and the final order cannot be sustained unless the specified and no other penalty is imposed.

4. Article 311 (2) as it stood at the relevant time prior to its amendment in 1976 imposed a constitutional obligation upon the punishment authority to serve a second show cause notice where it is proposed after a departmental inquiry to impose on the delinquent Government servant any of the penalties referred to in Art. 311 so as to give a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. Rule 15 (4) (i) (b) of the 1966 Rules prescribes procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authority before imposing punishment to the effect that the concerned authority should give a notice setting the penalty proposed to be imposed on the concerned government servant calling upon him to submit within 15 days of the receipt of notice or such further time not exceeding 15 days, as may be allow