An order of dismissal with retrospective effect is severable, and the valid part of the order can be given effect to even if the retrospective part is invalid.

Judgement

BACHAWAT, J. : The appellant held the post of Deputy Thasildar in the Revenue Department of the Government of Madras. Disciplinary proceedings were started against him on twelve charges of acceptance of illegal gratification during his office as Special Loans Deputy Thasildar, Cuddalore, South Arcot District Disciplinary proceedings were started against three of his subordinates also on similar charges. On May 20, 1949, he was placed under suspension and relieved of his duties. The Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal directed the consolidation and common hearing of the enquiries against he appellant and the other three civil servants. The appellant asked for permission to engage a counsel at the enquiry. By an order dated May 31, 1949, the Tribunal refused to give the permission. The enquiry was held on June 13 , 14 and 15. At the hearing, the other three civil servants were represented by counsel Sri Kalyanasundaram. On June 13 the appellant prayed for an adjournment. The Tribunal declined to grant the adjournment and told the appellant that he was at liberty to engage Sri Kalyanasundaram as his counsel. The appellant thereupon availed himself of the services of Sri Kalyanasundaram and was represented by him throughout the enquiry. On June 30, the Tribunal submitted a report stating that the charges against the appellant were proved and recommending his dismissal. On September 16, the Government issued a notice to him asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. On November 12, 1949, he submitted his written representation. On October 17, 1950 the Government directed that he be dismissed from service with effect from May 20, 1949. The appellant instituted the suit asking for a declaration that the order dated October 17, 1950 dismissing him from service is illegal and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and this decree was affirmed on appeal by the High Court of Madras. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave.

2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the refusal of the appellant s prayer for engaging a counsel of his own choice and his prayer for adjournment of the hearing on June 13, 1949, the appellant had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges. We are not inclined to accept this submission. There was no conflict of interests between him and the other three civil servants. Counsel representing the other three civil servants was allowed by the Tribunal also to represent him. The enquiry continued for three days. It is not proved that counsel was unable to conduct the defence properly. Even in his written representation dated November 12, 1949, the appellant did not allege that he was prejudiced in his defence. We are satisfied that the appellant had reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges.

3. Counsel for the appellant next contended that the order of dismissal dated October 17, 1950 having been passed with retrospective effect is illegal and inoperative. Counsel for the respondent submitted (1) the order of dismissal with retrospective effect as from the date of the suspension is valid in its entirety, and (2) in any event, the order is valid and effective as from October 17, 1950. The High Court accepted the first contention and declined to express any opinion on the second contention. In our opinion, the second contention of the respondent is sound, and in this view of the matter, we decline to express any opinion on the first contention. Counsel for the appellant conceded that if the respondent s 953 second contention is accepted, the appeal must fail.

4. The order dated October 17, 1950, directed that the appellant be dismissed from service with effect from the date of his suspension that is to say, from May 20, 1949. In substance, this order directed that (1) the appellant be dismissed, and (2) the dismissal do operate retrospectively as from May 20, 1949. The two parts of this composite order are s