( 1 ) THIS is a first appeal by the original plaintiffs J. J. Mody who was appointed as Regional Publicity Officer on 8-11-1949. He was dismissed from service on 6-12-1950 after having been suspended from service earlier and a departmental inquiry was held into the allegations that he had made some defamatory aspersions against some Ministers of the Government of the Bombay State. This order of dismissal was however set aside in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1952 filed by the appellant. After the decision of that suit, the Government passed an order on 26-5-54 continuing his suspension from 6-12-1950 and gave a second notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On 29th, the Government passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The present suit was thereupon filed by the appellant on 30 for a declaration that he is not guilty of any misconduct that the second order of suspension dated 26-5-1954 and the second order of dismissal dated 20th December 1954 are illegal void ultra-vires and inoperative that he still continues in service in the post which he held prior to his first suspension order dated 9th March 1960 and that he is entitled to all his salaries with progressive increments and allowances and other rights and amenities attached to his post. He has also prayed for an order on the State of Bombay to reinstate him in the post which he held prior to his first suspension dated 9-3-1950 and for a decree for Rs. 11 945 for arrears of salary and dearness allowance. Lastly, he has prayed for costs of the suit. The suit was resisted by the State. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division dismissed the plaintiffs suit. In appeal the following points are urged : (1) The preliminary inquiry held by Mr. Aiyer the Director of Publicity on 7-3-1960 was illegal as no reasonable opportunity had been given to the appellant in that inquiry. (2) A subsequent departmental inquiry ordered by the order dated 29-6-50 whereby Mr. Benjamin the Collector of Baroda was appointed as the Inquiry Officer was vitiated by the fact that the Inquiry Officer viz. the Collector of Baroda is subordinate to one of the Ministers against whom aspersions were alleged to have been made. (3) A statement admittedly signed by the appellant was extorted from him by pressure in the preliminary inquiry. (4) Legal aid was not allowed although the appellant had made a request for permission to engage a lawyer. ( (5) The words stated to have been uttered by the appellant making aspersions against the two Ministers were uttered jokingly in the course of a private talk and do not amount to misconduct in law. (6) The suspension order dated 26-5-1954 could not have any retrospective effect. (7) No reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to put forward his case at the departmental inquiry because he was not allowed permission to engage a lawyer. (8) The Public Service Commission had not been consulted and therefore the order of dismissal is vitiated and void.

( 2 ) AS regards the alleged illegality of the preliminary inquiry conducted by Aiyer the Director of Publicity it is important to note that this alleged inquiry was conducted before a show-cause notice was given. It was more or less in the nature of collection of facts. Under Article 311 of the Constitution, we have to see whether a reasonable opportunity had been given to the Government servant in question as contemplated in the said Article. If a reasonable opportunity had not been given then the order of dismissal would be bad. Even when a Court decides that an order of dismissal is bad in view of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution it does not hold that the departmental inquiry was illegal. What it holds is merely that a reasonable opportunity had not been given to the Government servant in question. We therefore do not propose to discuss the point as to the legality or otherwise of the preliminary inquiry which was conducted initially befor