JUDGMENT :- The respondent, who was the plaintiff, filed a suit against the States of Bombay for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service as a Deputy Superintendent of Police was illegal, null and void and for consequential reliefs and also to recover Rs. 4300/- by way of arrears of salary etc., upto May, 1954. He also prayed for salary and other allowances upto the date of reinstatement and for other reliefs. The first Court granted a decree on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the plaintiff as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. The plaintiffs suit was substantially decreed and almost all the reliefs were awarded. In first appeal, the District Judge, Jamnagar, confirmed this decree of the trial Court. In this second appeal it is urged by the State of Gujarat, which has taken the place of the State of Bombay who was the original defendant, that reasonable opportunity has been given.

2. In the course of the arguments various contentions have been urged regarding the interpretation of Art. 311 of the Constitution and various rulings have been cited. Article 311 of the Constitution, so far as relevant, reads as follows :

"(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him."

The first sub-section provides that no person referred to therein shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Sub-section (2) further provides that such authority shall not dismiss or remove or reduce him in rank until the person concerned has been given an opportunity (sic) (to show cause?). against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.

3. Certain questions may arise as to the construction of this sub-section, firstly as to the meaning of reasonable opportunity and secondly as to the meaning of the expression "action proposed to be taken".

4. As sub-section (2) provides that a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken must be given, the plain meaning would be that a reasonable opportunity should be given after the action is proposed to be taken. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Khemchand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 at 306, the opportunity to show cause must be a reasonable one and the person concerned should be informed about the charge or charges levelled against him and the evidence by which it is sought to be established, for it is only then that he will be able to put forward his defence. In other words, action by way of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank should be proposed to be taken against a person. The person must then be informed of the charge or charges levelled against him and the evidence by which it is sought to be established and the person concerned must be asked to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. In other words, the first stage is where action is proposed by way of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank. The person concerned should get a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and in order to get that reasonable opportunity he must be informed about the charge or charges levelled against him and the evidence by which it is sought to be established, for it is only then that he will be able to put forward his defence. That is why their Lordships of the Supreme Court have, in summarising the legal position, observed as follows :

"To summarise : the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes :

(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if

Click Here to Read the rest of this document