( 1 ) THIS case presents the question whether a government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe.

( 2 ) THE material facts are these: on March 27, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthy Rao, a hotel keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit and Anti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthy Rao was asked to deliver them to the petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of March 28, 1959, Krishnamurthy rao, according to his story, walked into the room of the petitioner, gave the bribe and made the pre-arranged signal which brought the Assistant Superintendent of Police and his companions to the room. It was said that the currency notes were recovered from a portion of the petitioner's dhoti and that that part of dhoti and his fingers when dipped in water gave it a pink colouration attributable to the chemical employed. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was placed by Government under suspension at the instance of the Special Officer of the anti-Corruption Department. But the next step was not a criminal prosecution but the commencement of disciplinary proceedings under the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules. The Special Officer of the Anti-Corruption Department whose staff had laid the trap and made the investigation was himself appointed to conduct the enquiry and a police inspector of that department was nominated by the Government which were the disciplinary authority, to lead evidence in support of the charge by an order which reads:

"proceedings of the Government of Mysore. Sub: Acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 300/-by Sri T. Muniswamy, C. T. O. , Chitradurga caught red-handed on the night of 28-3-59 'n pursuance of the trap. Read: (i) G. O. No. ED 130 CSE/59, dated the 4th April 1959. (2) Letter No. AC 3038-550/58-59, dated 22-5-1959, from the Special Officer, Efficiency, Audit. ORDER No. RD. 130 CSE/59, Bangalore, dated 30-6-1959. Government directs that an enquiry should be conducted against Shri T. Munniswamy, commercial Tax Officer (under suspension ). The Special Officer, Efficiency Audit should conduct the departmental enquiry in accordance with the Mysore Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, and, send a report to Government. He is requested to frame suitable charges against the delinquent officer. (2) Shri Narahari Sastry, Police Inspector of the Efficiency Audit is nominated to lead the evidence as provided under Rule 11 (5) of the CCA Rules. (3) The enquiry should be completed as early as possible. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore, sd/ -. . . . . . Secretary to Government Revenue Department. "

The Special Officer appointed to conduct the enquiry framed the necessary charge against the petitioner which reads:

"charge. You Sri T. Muniswamy, Commercial Tax Officer Chitradurga, while being in additional charge of the Office Of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, No. 1, Sub-Circle, chitradurga, from 20-3-59, in pursuance of your demand for an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/on 23-3-1959 from Sri. K. S. Krishna Murthy proprietor. District Office Tiffin Rooms, chitradurga Town, accepted an illegal gratification of Es. 300/- from the said Sri K. S. Krishna murthy on 28-3-59 in the room in the kitchen block, attached to the Pravasi Mandira, chitradurga, in consideration of showing him an official favour in determining the turnover for the year 1958-59 and thereby rendered yourself