The principle of natural justice requires that a person should not be condemned on ex parte statements and that no order of removal or discharge should be passed against a Government servant unless he has been given a real and effective opportunity of refuting the statements upon which his notice of discharge is based.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner Gopi Kishore Prasad has moved the High Court for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order of the Government of Bihar dated 23-7-1953 discharging the petitioner from Government service as Probationary Sub-Deputy Collector.

2. The petitioner Gopi Kishore Prasad was appointed as a temporary Sub-Deputy Collector in the year 1944 and in 1946 the petitioner was vested with the powers of a first class Magistrate. On 8-12-1947 the petitioner was appointed to a Substantive post in the Bihar Subordinate Civil Service and was placed on probation. On 4-11-1952 the Government of Bihar issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The notice is annexure A to the application. In this notice the Government say that the petitioner had earned notoriety as a corrupt officer while he was posted at Jamshedpore, and that his judicial work was carefully scrutinized by the Government and in eight criminal cases the orders of acquittal passed by the petitioner were found to be perverse. The notice further states that from May 1949 to March 1951 the petitioner was posted at Nawada and there also his reputation was bad. The petitioner was transferred later on to Gaya and his work at Gaya was also found unsatisfactory. The petitioner made a representation to the Government in response to the notice. The petitioner denied the charges of corruption and bribery and requested the permission of the Government to inspect the records of the cases which he had decided at Jamshedpore.

The petitioner also prayed for an opportunity to cross-examine the Collector and the Commissioner who had sent adverse reports against him. The petitioner further submitted that he should be given a copy of the confidential reports of the Collector and the Commissioner upon which the notice of the Government was based. But the Government of Bihar permitted the petitioner only to examine the records of the criminal cases which he had tried at Jamshedpore. The Government did not permit the petitioner to inspect the confidential reports sent by the Collector and the Commissioner and the Government also declined the request of the petitioner that he should be permitted to lead evidence or to cross-examine the Collector and the Commissioner upon whose report the Government had taken action. On 23-7-1953 the Government of Bihar passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner as a Probationary Sub-Deputy Collector.

It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the Government of Bihar had no justification for withholding the confidential reports from being shown to the petitioner during the proceedings. It is further alleged that the procedure contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not followed by the Government and the petitioner was entitled to a second notice in terms of the language employed in that article. It was also submitted that the petitioner should have been allowed to examine witnesses on his behalf and also to cross-examine the Collector and the Commissioner upon whose confidential reports the notice of discharge was based. It was stated on petitioners behalf that Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applied to his case and the full procedure contemplated by that article should have been followed. It was therefore argued that the order of discharge passed by the Government dated the 23rd July 1953 was illegal and ultra vires on the ground of all these irregularities of procedure.

3. The first submission made on petitioners behalf is that the procedure contemplated by Rule 55 has not been followed and the order of discharge passed by the Government was therefore illegal and void. In support of his argument Mr. Baldeva Sahai referred to Rule 55 which states--

"Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction