The punishing authority must apply its mind to the evidence and arrive at tentative findings of fact before issuing a notice of the proposed punishment. The civil servant must be given a copy of the findings and an opportunity to make representations against them.

JAGAT NARAYAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one nathulal, who was formerly judicial clerk in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, begun, against an order of the District Magistrate and Collector, Chittorgarh, dated 8-9-1955, dismissing him from service. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. We are satisfied that the application must be allowed.

( 2 ) ONE Durjansingh complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begun, alleging that Shri Nathulal, the then judicial clerk had obtained from Jairam, Bhura, Deva and Lalsingh a sum of Rs. 400/-, as illegal gratification. They were accused persons in a dacoity case pending in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On receiving this complaint the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held an enquiry and reported to the Collector that sufficient evidence for prosecuting Nathulal was not available. The Collector thereupon ordered departmental proceedings to be taken against him. A charge was accordingly framed against him by the Sub-Divisional magistrate. The evidence of Durjansingh and his witnesses was taken in the presence of Nathulal who had an opportunity of cross-examining these witnesses. Nathulal was allowed to adduce evidence in his defence alsd. On a consideration of the entire evidence the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not seem to have come to a definite finding in clear and unambiguous terms either that the charge had been proved or that it had not been proved. He has observed that the charge has been supported by Durjansingh and his witnesses but that no independent person has come forward to support it. At the same time he said that bribe was generally not offered in the presence of independent witnesses and that in such cases it was difficult to find an independent witness. He went on to say that if the case was sent to court it was possible that it might not succeed. Further he observed that from the evidence on record it could not be said that, Nathulal had not accepted bribe, and went on to say that it was desirable that there should be even a complaint of bribery against a Government servant. He recommended that in view of the fact that it was the first offence of nathulal his increment for two years should be withheld and he should be deprived of future promotion to a responsible post.

( 3 ) ON receiving the above report the Collec for issued the following notice to the applicant :

"durjansingh filed an application on 8-3-1953 before Sub-Divisional officer, Begun for holding an enquiry pertaining to bribery. An enquiry was held in the matter and you are hereby informed by notice that you should show cause on 6-9-1955-why you should not be dismissed from service for this offence. If you wish to say something personally you can appear before me on that day at your expense and say it. "

( 4 ) THE applicant filed a written representation before the Collector and also appeared before him and was heard personally. On a consideration of the representation and the evidence recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the collector held that the charge of having accepted Rs. 400/- as bribe had been proved. He ac-cordingly dismissed Nathulal from service. He assumed that the sub-Divisional Magistrate had also come to the conclusion that the charge had been proved against Nathulal.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the applicant it was urged before us that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause within the meaning of Article 311 (21 of the Constitution. We have observed above that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not come to a definite finding that the charge had been proved against the applicant. It does not appear from the notice served on the applicant by the collector that he applied his mind to the evidence appearing against the ap-plicant and came to the conclusion that the charge had been proved against him before issuin