Under Article 311(2), the dismissing authority need not expressly state in the notice that it has accepted the findings of the Enquiring officer, as it is implicit that the findings have been accepted when the notice is issued indicating the proposed action. Additionally, the grounds or reasons for the proposed action need not be stated in the notice, as the respondent is entitled to challenge the findings and the proposed action in his explanation.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the scope and effect of the provisions contained in Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The said question arises in this way. The respondent Bimal Kumar Pandit was serving appellant No. 1, the State of Assam, as an Extra-Assistant Commissioner, Shillong. on December 11, 1959, the second appellant, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, served on the respondent a charge-sheet containing eleven specific charges and called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service or otherwise Punished under R. 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules read with Art. 311 of the Constitution. The said notice further informed the respondent that the Governor of Assam had been pleased to authorise the Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam, to conduct the enquiry and to report to appellant No. 2. On January 13,1960 the respondent submitted an elaborate explanation in respect of all the charges. The Commissioner of Plains Division. Assam, then proceeded to hold an enquiry and after considering the evidence adduced before him, he made the report on the 12th April, 1960. In this report the Enquiring officer found that out of the 11 charges drawn up against the respondent, 6 had not been proved and of the remaining 5 charges, two had been fully established-they were charges (7) and (10); and the other three charges-Nos. (i). (2) an (4) had been Partially established. The report made these findings and proceeded to add that the lapses proved did not cast any serious doubt on the honesty and integrity of the delinquent Officer, although the evidence led in respect of charges (1) and (2) proved his inexperience and that led under charges (2) and (4) showed his irresponsibility. The report further stated that in the circumstances, the two charges which deserved consideration for purposes of punishment were charges (7) and (10); and it ended with the recommendation that in view of the limited scope of the charges proved and of the age and experience of the delinquent officer, the withholding of three increments from his pay would meet the ends of justice in this case.

2. After this report was received, appellant No. 2 served a second notice on the respondent on the 1st of June, 1960. This notice referred to the disciplinary proceedings held against the respondent and added that the respondent was thereby required under cl. (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution to submit his explanation if any, why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him. The notice further stated that a copy of the report of the Enquiring officer in the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the respondent was enclosed. The respondent was told that he had to submit his explanation through the Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam, on or before June 18, 1960.

3. On receiving this notice, the respondents submitted his explanation on June 21, 1960 in respect of the charges which had been held proved by the Endearing officer. After considering the explanation thus submitted by the respondent, the Governor of Assam was pleased to reduce in rank the respondent who was on probation in the Assam Civil Service, Class I to the Assam Civil Service Class II, permanently, with effect from the date he takes over as such. The Governor of Assam further ordered that the respondent will be on probation in the said Class II Service for two years, subject to termination if his work and conduct were not found satisfactory. The respondent was to draw his pay in the minimum of the scale of pay of A.C.S., Class II and his seniority in the cadre would be determined with effect from the date of his joining. This order was made on July 8, 1961.

4. The respondent then challenged the validity of this order by a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Assam on the 24th August, 1961. One of the points urged by him was that he had not been give