A civil servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon him under Article 311 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule issued upon the opposite parties, the Superintendent of Police in the district of Burdwan, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, district Hooghly and the State of West Bengal, to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be Issued quashing the order of the first respondent, dated 27-6-1952 and the order in appeal therefrom passed by the second respondent dated 5-11-1952 and why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the said orders and/or findings and why such other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

( 2 ) THE facts are shortly as follows:-- The petitioner has been serving in the Bengal Police for the last 15 years. He was last serving as an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police at Kalna in the district of Burdwan, to which he was promoted in 1946 from the rank of an Assistant Inspector of Police. On or about 31-12-1950 one Durlav Roy, a Zemindar of Burdwan, submitted a petition to the Inspector General of Police making several charges against the petitioner, e. g. , that the petitioner had falsely implicated the complainant in the Sadar Ghat dacoity case. It was said that the petitioner had interpolated certain entries in the General Diary No. 993 dated 19-12-1949 and the seizure list of search in connection with the investigation of Burdwan P. C. Case No. 28 (12)49 under Section 458, I. P. C. The matter arose in the following way. The petitioner was investigating into the Sadar Ghat dacoity case which took place on 17-12-1949. Next day, there was a burglary in the house of one Bibhuti Choudhury at Syamsayer. The burglars escaped, leaving behind an empty revolver holster. According to the petitioner, he had reasonable grounds for suspicion that this holster belonged to Durlav Roy; he approached Durlav Roy for the production of his holster and as it could not he produced, his house was searched. The case of Durlav Roy on the other hand is that the holster was not found at the house of Eibhuti Choudhury at all. The holster was missing and was picked up by two constables in front of his house and deposited in the Police Station on the morning of 19-12-1949. His case was that on the basis of this holster, the petitioner framed a false case against him in order to implicate him in the dacoity and the burglary. Further allegation is that the General Diary entry and the seizure list were tampered with to support this false case. Upon this complaint being made, there were certain investigations and on 17-5-1951 the Inspector General, Respondent No. 2, ordered that the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, should draw up proceedings against the petitioner (and other persons with whom we are not concerned in this case ). On 31-7-1951 charges were framed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 and he was directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed, discharged or degraded or otherwise dealt with for interpolation in the general diary entry No. 993 dated 19-12-1949 and the seizure list of search in connection with investigation of Burdwan P. S. Case No. 28 (12)49, under Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, and also for implicating the owner of a revolver holster in that case. The petitioner was asked to show cause by 13-8-1951. The petitioner states that he was not given a copy of the petition of Durlav Roy or of the report of the preliminary enquiries. The matter seems to have dragged on and several witnesses were examined, until 27-6-1952 when the first respondent made his report. In that report, the first respondent, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the holster was not found at the house of Bibhuti Choudhury and therefore the whole case of the petitioner must fail. He thereafter proceeded to say as follows:"i think, therefore, that the charge that the S. I. took advantage of accidental recovery of the revolver holste