Before making an order with adverse civil consequences, a public authority must afford the affected person an opportunity to show cause against such action, and the disciplinary authority should make up its mind at the initial stage whether to adopt the procedure for the imposition of a major penalty or the comparatively summary procedure for the imposition of a minor penalty.

V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.

1. The petitioner was a member of the Kerala State Forest Service and was occupying the post of Conservator of Forests which he relinquished on superan­nuation on 6-8-1967.

2. Certain charges were framed against the petitioner as per a memo dated 11-11-1967 and this was supplemented by an additional statement of allegations furnished along with a letter addressed to him on 1-2-1967. After considering the explanation which the petitioner furnished in answer to those charges, the State Government by its order evidenced by Ex. P1, dated 13-3-1967, exonerated the petitioner from all those charges.

3. The State Cadre of the Indian Forests Service had been constituted with effect from 1-10-1966 and interviews had been conducted for the selection of officers belonging to the State Service for inclusion in the newly formed Indian Forest Service Cadre. The petitioner who was occupying the 2nd rank in the seniority list amongst the officers in the Kerala State Forest Service was selected by the Special Selection Board and also by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment to the Indian Forest Service; but his appointment was not notified because the State Government had intimated to the Central Government that disciplinary proceedings were then pending against him. In consequence of this the petitioner's name was not included in the notification dated 4th March, 1967 (Ex. P2), issued under Rule 6 of the Indian Forest Service announcing the appointment of 21 officers belonging to the Kerala State Forests Service as members of the Indian Forest Service on probation.

4. It would appear that pursuant to his exoneration under Ex. P1, the State Government had addressed a communication to the Home Misinistry on 2-3-1967 stating that there was no objection to the petitioner's inclusion in the Indian Forest Service in view of his exoneration from the charges which had been enquired into. In that communication it also appears to have been mentioned that though some allegations against the petitioner were pending enquiry with the Director of Vigilance Investigation, no specific charges had been framed against him in respect of them. It is the petitioner's case that further action in the matter of his appointment to the Indian Forest Service was however prevented as the result of a subsequent communication addressed by the State Government to the Home Ministery requesting that the matter may be kept in abeyance till the remaining allegations against the petitioner were also examined by the Government and he was cleared of those imputations also. The truth of this averment put forward by the petition has not been denied either by the State Government or by the Central Government (2nd respondent).

5. On 3-8-1967 the petitioner was served with a memo of charges and he was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) should not be taken against him. perusal off Ex. P3 leaves no room for doubt that it was a notice issued under Rule 15 (1) (a) of the Rules. In response to that memo the petitioner filed a detailed statement of defence, a copy of which has been produced along with the original petition and marked as Ex. P4. The Government, thereafter, by G.O. MS. 89/68/Home dated 7-3-1968 referred the case for a detailed enquiry to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 15 of the Rules. An elaborate enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal in which as many as 15 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and one witness was called on the defence side and 50 documents were also produced and marked in evidence After the conclusion of the said enquiry the Tribunal submitted to Government a report dated 15th January, 1969, of which Ex. P5 is a copy. In the said report the Tribunal after a detailed discussion of the evidence adduced in the case and also the contentions urged