A probationer is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution if he is proceeded against for alleged misconduct with a view to punishing him therefor.

( 1 ) ON 27-10-1944, the appellant, Naresh Chandra Gangopadhyay, was appointed a District Fishery Officer along with several other persons. He was put on probation for a period of two years and the order of appointment specifically provided that he would be confirmed in service "on the satisfactory completion of the period of probation and the passing of a departmental examination, which may be prescribed during the period. " No departmental examination was held during the probationary period, but the appellant was allowed to continue in service. An examination was held in 1951 and the appellant did appear in it, but was unable to pass. Up to the time when the proceedings out of which this appeal has arisen were commenced, he had not passed the departmental examination. We are informed that he passed it while he was under suspension.

( 2 ) ON 22-9-1951, the appellant was placed under suspension by an order passed on that date. Along with the order, a charge-sheet containing as many as five charges was served on him. Those charges related principally to alleged irregularities in monetary dealings and also failure to maintain proper accounts. The charge-sheet, after reciting the charges, directed the appellant to show cause within a fortnight why disciplinary action under Rule 7 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1936 should not be taken against him. Both the order of suspension and the charge-sheet were signed by one Dr. Baini Prasad who was the Director of Fisheries at the time.

( 3 ) THE appellant showed cause by means of a lengthy document submitted on 14-11-1931. On the 7th of December following, he received a telegram from the Director of Fisheries, directing him to see the Director on the 10th of December next in connection with the explanation furnished. Ho did see the Director on that date and something like an enquiry was held at which another Officer as also a stenographer was present. What happened exactly on the 10th of December is a matter of dispute between the parties, but this much is clear that the enquiry was not concluded on that date. It appears from a letter of the Director that he thought that the appellant was obstinately refusing to furnish further explanation as to certain points raised by him in his memorandum and that he was insisting on the points being formally reduced to writing and formally served on him before he would undertake to answer them. The appellant's version is different. Be that as it may, the Director finally asked the appellant to appear before him once again on the 13th of December. The appellant did not appear on that date, but on the previous clay left a letter addressed to the Director at his Office by which he explained his own point of view. As the appellant failed to appear on the 13th of December, the Director treated his examination as closed and made a report which was adverse to the appellant. The report was duly considered by Government and they came provisionally to the conclusion that the appellant "should be punished with discharge from Government service under Rule 49 (vi) of the Civil" Service (C. G. A.) Rules. " By a notice dated 14-5-1952, an Assistant Secretary to the State Government called upon the appellant to submit within fifteen days any representation that he might desire to make as to why he should not be punished in the aforesaid manner.

( 4 ) THE appellant did make a representation, but it found no favour with the authorities. They consulted the Public Service Commission and on the recommendation received from that body, they finally decided that the appellant should be discharged from Government service. Thereafter, by an order dated 28-3-1953, he was discharged.

( 5 ) THE appellant then moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Director of Fisheries, the Secretary in the Department of Forests and Fisheries and the State of West Bengal for a writ of mandamus, commanding