This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Madras, namely, G.O.M.S. 1683 (Home Department) dated nth June, 1954. In and by that order, the Government directed that the appellant be dismissed from service with effect from 20th March, 1953.

The appellant was the Official Receiver, Coimbatore. He also held other offices, namely, the office of the Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes and the office of Rent Controller. Several charges were framed against him, relating to discharge of his functions as Official Receiver. The Additional District Judge of Coimbatore conducted the enquiry and he submitted a report, holding that two of the charges had been fully proved and two others had been proved in part . Subsequently, three further charges were framed by the District Judge, one of which related to his work as Rent Controller. The District Judge himself held the enquiry into these charges and found that all the three charges had been proved. After receipt of the reports of the learned Additional District Judge and the learned District Judge, the Government issued a notice on 30th September, 1953 to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Along with this notice, copies of the findings embodied in the reports of the Additional District Judge and the District Judge were also furnished to the appellant. The appellant submitted his representation on 19th October, 1953. Meanwhile, the Government consulted the Public Service Commission in the matter, as required by Article 320 (3) of the Constitution. The Public Service Commission sent their views to the Government in their communicatidn dated 15th March, 1954. Subsequently, on nth June, 1954, after taking into consideration the opinion of the Public Service Commission the Government passed the order dismissing the appellant from service.

Two grounds which were raised before Rajagopalan, J., who heard and disposed of the Writ Petition, and which did not find favour with him, were again Dressed before us by learned counsel for the appellant. The first ground urged was that the provisions of Article 311 (2) were not complied with in this case, as the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, because the opinion of the Public Service Commission was not communicated to him. In other words, the argument was that the notice issued to the appellant to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him should have been issued after the expression of opinion by the Public Service Commission. We do not see any substance in this ground. Article 320 (3) of the Constitution provides inter alia that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of the State in a civil capacity and it shall be the duty of the Public Service Commission to advice on any matter so referred to them. It was not contended that the advice tendered by the Public Service Commission should invariably be accepted by the Government. Admittedly, there is no rule which makes it incumbent on the Government to issue a notice to the Government servant, against whom disciplinary action is proposed to be taken, to give him an opportunity of commenting on the advice given by the Public Service Commission. The enquiry into the charges is made by a judicial officer or Head of the Department, and it is on the basis of the report after such enquiry that the Government issue the notice to show cause why a particular punishment should not be imposed. The fact that a particular punishment is proposed does not certainly preclude the Government from imposing a lesser punishment. This may be because of the explanation or representation submitted b