The reasonable opportunity to show cause under S. 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, does not require a further opportunity to examine witnesses if there has been a fair and full enquiry at an earlier stage before the Enquiry Officer.

Judgment

J. C. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) MAJOR U. R. Bhatt, who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant was appointed Senior Inspector, (Fruit Products) in the Central Agricultural Marketing Department of the Government of India on 9/04/1946. The appellant was initially employed on probation for six months and his appointment was liable to be terminated without notice during probation and thereafter by notice of three months duration on either side. The appellant continued to work as Senior Inspector till 17/03/1947. He was then served with a charge-sheet and called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed or removed from service or otherwise punished. The appellant submitted his written statement on 22/03/1947. On Ma 25/03/1947, he appeared before the Joint Secretary of the Agricultural Department and he was heard in person. The Joint Secretary made a report recommending that the appellants employment be terminated according to the terms of the contract by giving him notice. The Minister Incharge of the portfolio concerned, however, directed an enquiry after framing fresh charges against the appellant and that in the meanwhile, he be suspended. On 7/05/1947, another charge-sheet was served upon the appellant. By that charge-sheet, he was charged with irresponsibility and insubordination and accordingly unfit to hold the post of Senior Inspector. The appellant submitted a reply to the charges. The case was then posted for hearing on 9/06/1947, before the Joint Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, who was appointed the Enquiry Officer. On that day, Sardar Bahadur Lal Singh, the Fruit Development Adviser was present at the hearing and was examined. The appellant objected to the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in using marginal notes made by Sardar Bahadur Lal Singh on the representation made by the appellant. The case then stood adjourned to 10/06/1947. On that day, the appellant met the Enquiry Officer and intimated that he (the appellant) would not take further part in the proceeding, and promised the Enquiry Officer to send a letter explaining his reasons for withdrawing from the proceeding. The proceeding was then adjourned till June 13. The promised letter of the appellant was received on the 11th of June. The Enquiry Officer then submitted his report holding that the charges incorporated in the charge-sheet were substantially proved by the evidence on the record. The Holding that the appellant was "irresponsible, insubordinate and unreliable, and as such unfit to be kept in the post of the Senior Inspector" the Enquiry Officer recommended that he be dismissed from service from the date on which he was placed under suspension. The Governor General of India accepted the report and issued a notice to the appellant requiring him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant made his representation on 10/11/1947. The Governor General by order dated 3/12/1947, discharged the appellant from service with effect from the date of suspension. The appellant then served the statutory notice of suit upon the Government of India and filed Suit No. 442 of 1948 in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Delhi for a decree for a declaration that the order of discharge dated 3/12/1947, purporting to terminate the employment of the appellant was void and inoperative and that the appellant continued to remain in service. The appellant by his plaint challenged the validity of the order of discharge on the ground that enquiry on fresh charges against him was illegal, that he was not given adequate opportunity to show cause or to put in his defence at the enquiry, that his suspension was illegal, that the procedure prescribed by law was not followed and that the order of discharge was mala fide and therefore void. At the hearing of the suit, the appellant also contended that the Public Service Commission not having been consulted as enjoined by S. 266 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the order term