The court held that the enquiry was not vitiated by the fact that it was conducted by an officer subordinate to the accuser, the show cause notice was valid, even though it was authenticated by the accuser, and the order of removal was valid, as the Governor had considered the matter and had applied his mind to the facts of the case.

1. This is an appeal against an order discharging a Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution obtained by the appellant in respect of his removal from service by order of the Governor of the State of West Bengal. The respondents to the petition were (1) The State of West Bengal, (2) B. Das Gupta, Secretary, Excise department, Government of West Bengal, (3) K. P. Sen, Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal at the relevant time, (4) the present Commissioner of Excise, (5) A. B. Rudra, Deputy Secretary, Department of Excise at the relevant time and (6) Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal.

2. The facts leading to the making of the application are as follows: As a result of the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Service Examination held in December 1952 the petitioner along with two other persons were appointed on probation to the west Bengal Junior Excise Service. The period of probation was to be two years during which they were required to undergo the prescribed training and pass all the Departmental examinations. Before completion of his period of probation the petitioner submitted an application on June 6, 1955 for permission to sit at a competitive examination to be held by the State Public service Commission for recruitment of commercial Tax Officers. He got back his application on July 16, 1955 with the information that necessary permission was not granted by the Governor. In the meanwhile however he had been preparing himself to sit for the examination. On the last mentioned date he sought for an interview with A. B. Rudra to persuade him to accord permission for appearing at the examination. The happenings at the interview formed the subject matter of an enquiry against him and ultimately led to his removal from service. According to the petitioner he behaved politely throughout the interview but the respondent No. 5 used insulting language towards him and his father. The said respondent left his room for sometime and came hack with one S. V. Krishnan, under Secretary, Home Department and threatened the petitioner with removal by force. Ultimately a police sergeant and a police constable were brought in who assaulted the petitioner and dragged him out of the room. On august 17, 1955 i.e., nearly a month afterwards the petitioner received a charge sheet initialing proceedings under rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal)Rules. Three charges were leveled against him. (1) He was guilty of gross indiscipline and insubordination inasmuch as he insisted upon the reasons for not forwarding his application for permission being given then and there ; (2) that he was guilty of gross misconduct inasmuch as he used offensive language to the effect that the days were days of democracy and not of "julumbaji" and (3) that he was utterly unsuitable for Government service because of his conduct including the use of violence against the police.

The narrative on which the charges were framed was in substance as follows: The petitioner saw the Deputy Secretary A. B. Rudra at about 2 P. M. in his room and wanted the latter to forward to the Public Service commission his application for the post of a Commercial Tax Officer which had been withheld by the Government and although the petitioner was told the reason for the same he insisted that the same should be forwarded although the deputy Secretary A. B. Rudra and B. K. Bhattacharyya, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department who happened to be present there, tried to reason with him. The petitioner arrogantly demanded that his application must be forwarded. The Deputy Secretary thereafter asked the petitioner to leave the application with him but the latter remarked that he knew the tricks of Government officers and when told that better conduct was expected of an Inspector of Excise, said that the days were days of democracy and not of "julumbaji. " Thereafter the petitioner was asked to leave the room and make a representation to Go