Rajamannar, C.J.-There is no substance in this appeal.

The first point urged by the appellant’s learned counsel was that there was no reasonable opportunity afforded to him, after he had been served with a “show cause.” notice and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution were therefore infringed. The appellant was only suspended from service for one year. We agree with the learned Judge, Rajagopalan, J., against whose order this appeal is preferred that a mere suspension would not fall within Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The decision of the Nagpur High Court in Provincial Government, C.P. & Berar v. Shamsul Hussain1, was relied upon in which it is observed that a mere suspension may amount to reduction in rank. With great respect to the learned Judge, we do not agree with this interpretation. A mere suspension does not involve necessarily a reduction in rank.

The next point taken is that the appellant was not given an opportunity of establishing his defence. There was no complaint made before the Collector, or the Board, that the appellant was not given an opportunity to lead evidence which he wanted to in support of his case. We also agree with the learned Judge tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document