Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a Patwari in Ludhiana District. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, dismissed him from service vide order dated April 20, 1963. He went in an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur. who vide order dated Feb. 23, 1970, accepted it and held that the order of dismissal was without jurisdiction the impugned order could be passed by the Collector and not by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. He further held that his order would not debar the Collector from starting fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings were started again against him and the Collector Ludhiana District imposed a penalty of page of three increment with cumulative effect vide order dated Sept. 11, 1970.
(2.) It is next averred by the petitioner that on Feb. 5, 1971, the Collector, Ludhiana District passed an order under Rule 7.3(2) and (3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to the effect that the petitioner would be entitled only to the subsistence allowance for the period from April 1, 1963 to June 23, 1970 as admissible under Rule 7.2 of the Rules and that the period would not be treated as a period spent on duty, counted for the purpose of pension. The petitioner filed a representation to the Collector against the order which was rejected by him on Oct. 7, 1971. He has now challenged the order through this Writ Petition. The writ petition has contested by the respondents. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the order dated Feb. 5, 1971 (Copy annexure- C) notice should been given to him, as required by sub-rule(4) of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol I.
(3.) I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned counsel and find force in it is not disputed that sub-rule (4) is applicable to the present case It is specifically provided in the said sub-rule that before passing an order as to how the period of suspension after reinstatement is to be treated, a show-cause notice is to be given to the Government employee No such notice has been given in the present case. Thus the order is in contravention of the said sub-rule and is liable to be quashed.;