An order of discharge from service which is in effect an order of removal by way of penalty cannot be passed without giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Das, J.

1. This is an application for the issue of a writ in respect of an order of discharge passed against the petitioner on 27-2-1953, which the petitioner says he received on 3-3-1953. The order of discharge is contained in Office Memorandum No. B-256, dated 27-2-1953, which memorandum is in these terms:

"Sree Kanta Gharan Srivastava, son of Sri Raghunath Sahaya, a resident of Mahalla Damuchak, P.O. and P. S. Muzaffarpur, and the temporary sub-postmaster, Bidhupur R. S. Sub-office, and Sri Jagdish Prasad Sinha of village Rajkhund, P. O. Garaul and P. S. Mahuwea and the then temporary clerk, Jhanjharpur Sub-Office, were allowed to appear at the recruitment examination held on 30-7-50 in the Zilla School, Muzaffarpur, and Patna High School, Gardanibagh, respectively. As a result of the said examination they were selected by the Postmaster-General, Bihar Circle, Patna, and allotted to this division for appointment as clerks. Their answer books and application forms were accordingly sent by the Postmaster-General, for record in this office. At the time of appointment their hand-writings were compared with those in their answer books in English subject and found to differ. This being a case of false personation, the matter was reported to the Postmaster-General, Bihar Circle, Patna, who ordered the case to be reported to the Police. From the police report it appears that these two officials did not actually sit at the examination and in their places two other persons sat for them. These two officials were placed under suspension with effect from the date noted against each: 1. Sri Kamta Charan Srivastava. 25-4-52.

2. Sri Jagdish Prasad Sinha. 28-3-52.

Now, that the cases have been established against them, Sri Kamta Charan Srivastava and Sri Jagdish Prasad Sinha are informed that being undesirable their services are not required in this department. Under the Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, they are hereby given one months notice of discharge from this department. This notice will take effect from the date on which it is received by Sri Kamta Charan Srivastava and Sri Jaglish Prasad Sinha and they will be treated as discharged from this department on the expiry of the period of one calendar month from that date. Sd. B. B. Sen Gupta Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur Division."

2. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance of a notification issued by the Postmaster-General of Bihar in 1950, Calling for applications to fill certain vacancies in the Postal Department, the petitioner sat at an examination held at Muzaffarpur on 30-7-1950. As a result of the examination the petitioner was selected for appointment as a postal clerk and allotted for service in the Tirhut Postal Division. He underwent training at a training centre and thereafter he was posted to the office of a temporary clerk at Sitamarhi. The petitioner further states that in accordance with a letter dated 13-3-1951, issued from the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur, the hand-writing of the petitioner was tested with the answer-books which he had written at the examination held on 30-7-1950, and he was selected for training after his hand-writing had been compared with the hand-writing in the answer-books.

The petitioner completed his period of probation on 30-6-1951, and was later posted as a Sub-Postmaster at Pukki Sarai Post Office. On 15-4-1952, the Sub-Inspector in charge of the Muzaffarpur Town Police Station interrogated the petitioner about his answer-books at the competitive examination held on the 30-7-1950. This enquiry, it appears, was made in the course of an investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 419, Penal Code. The petitioners case is that the local police submitted a final report in the case, holding that there was no sufficient evidence for a charge-sheet. While this investigation was proceeding, the petitioner received an orde