The constitutional guarantee of reasonable opportunity for a Government servant in an enquiry under the Civil Services Rules is not contingent upon the right of appeal to the Government from the penalty imposed by the Government.

MADHAVAN NAIR, J. :- This appeal is against the refusal by a learned Single Judge to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Governments order dismissing the appellant from service for proved corruption.

2. The Government having received reports that the appellant, while he was Special Forest officer, Kuthuparamba, received illegal gratification and helped illicit transport of timber from the forest areas under his jurisdiction, conducted a preliminary investigation which disclosed a prima facie case, placed the appellant under suspensions, framed specific charges against him, served them on him, and finding his explanation thereto unsatisfactory, ordered an enquiry by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, who submitted his report to Government on May 16, 1959 finding corruption on the part of the appellant and recommending his removal from service.

Government then consulted the Public service commission, who, by their letter dated July 23, 1959, concurred with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and recommended the appellants dismissal from service. On 7-8-1959 the appellant was asked why he should not be dismissed from service. The explanation he offered on April 14, 1960, did not find favour with the Government who dismissed him from service by the order Ext. P 4 dated June 21, 1960. It was to quash the order Ext. P 4 that a writ was sought from this Court; and that motion having failed before a learned Judge the appellant has come up with this appeal.

3. The complaint is that under Rule 17(5) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the inquiring Authority should have submitted his report to the Appointing Authority, who, in this case, was the conservator of Forests, in which case the appellant would have had a right of appeal to Government from the penalty that right have been imposed on him by the Appointing Authority, that as the report was submitted to the Government and the punishment imposed on him by the Government he was deprived of his right of appeal and that that amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity guaranteed in Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

4. Under Article 310 of the Constitution a government servant holds office during the pleasure of the Governor, the only limitations on the exercise of that pleasure being what are provided in Article 311, viz., that he should not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, and that, before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank he should be given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. There is no complaint that the first guarantee has been violated in the appellants case. In fact, his dismissal was by the order of the Governor who is the highest authority in the State. His complaint is that "reasonable opportunity"assured by Article 311(2) has not been afforded to him. What is reasonable opportunity is not defined in the Constitution. its contents have however been defined by the Supreme Court in Khem Chana v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300, at p. 307 and reiterated in Kapur Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 493, at p. 498, Jagannath Prasad Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245, at p. 1253 and U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1344, at p. 2347, Reasonable opportunity comprises :

"(a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based : (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witness produced against him and by examining himself or any ether witness in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise o