1. In this writ petition, Mr. P. Subramanian Potti, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the disciplinary proceedings initiated as against his client and which culminated in the order Ext. P-11 passed by the respondent, State.

2. Ext. P.11 is dated 15th October 1960. By that order, the petitioner's services as part-time lecturer in the Law College, Trivandrum stood terminated with effect from 29-1-1960 viz., the date on which he was placed under suspension, pending inquiry.

3. The very large attack that has been made against the proceedings by Mr. P. Subramanian Potti, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even assuming that the petitioner is a Government servant, subject to the disciplinary control of the Government, and conceding the jurisdiction of the Government to take disciplinary action also, the proceedings in this case do not satisfy the requirement of reasonable opportunity, guaranteed to persons, like the petitioner, under Art.311 of the Constitution.

4. No doubt, there are several other grounds raised in the writ petition, with which also I will deal with later in this judgment.

5. The circumstances under which the writ petition has been filed ma