1. A regular enquiry is required to be held before imposing a major penalty on a government servant. 2. A government servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and defend himself in a disciplinary proceeding. 3. Retrospective suspension is not valid if the punishment of the government servant has been set aside by a Court of law.

JUDGMENT :

N.K. Das, J. - While Petitioner was serving as a Forester, he was placed under suspension by the Divisional Forest Officer on 30-5-1950. The D.F.O. framed some charges against the Petitioner on 13-1-1951. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. It is alleged that no enquiry was made and the explanation was sent for comments of the Range Officer and the Assistant Conservator of Forests. Thereafter, a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was issued to the Petitioner on 5-2-1951. Petitioner submitted his Explanation to the show-cause notice and thereafter he was removed from service. On appeal to the Conservator of Forests, the order of the D.F.O. was set aside and the matter was directed to reopen the proceeding from the stage where the irregularities crept in and to draw up fresh charges. In that order dated 15-5-1954 (Annexure-8), it was mentioned that the Petitioner was reinstated and placed under suspension with effect from the date of his removal from service. It is alleged that after that order no enquiry was conducted, nor any fresh charge was forwarded and no witnesses were examined to support the charge. The Petitioner was asked to produce defence witnesses and his statement was recorded. The D.F.O. submitted a report to the Conservator of Forests. The D.F.O. in his report stated that he found the Petitioner guilty of only one charge, i.e. charge No. 3. He relied upon the alleged depositions of one Balaram Mohapatra and Rusia Patra, the report of the Range Officer and the diary of the D.F.O. It is asserted that the depositions of the aforesaid two persons were recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry and the persons who made reports against the Petitioner were not produced for cross-examination. It was also not mentioned to the Petitioner that such report or diary would be taken into consideration. The Petitioner was intimated that the evidence of Balaram and that of Rusia were not available on records and the records were reconstructed. The D.F.O. in his report recommended to treat the period of suspension of the Petitioner as suspension and to reinstate him in service. The Conservator of Forests issued notice to show cause against the punishment of dismissal holding the Petitioner guilty of three charges. Ultimately, the Conservator passed order of dismissal. On appeal to the State Government, the order of dismissal was modified to that of discharge. The Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 6 of 1963 against that order which was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1966 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Conservator of Forests to deal with it in accordance, with law. The judgment of the Supreme Court was passed on 25-3-1969. By order dated 17-2-1970 the Petitioner was reinstated in service. He was served with a notice to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India against the proposed punishment of discharge from service along with other punishments in respect, of charge No. 3 only. On the following date, i.e. 3-9-1970, an order was passed by the D.F.O. stating that the Petitioner was deemed to be under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal. Again a notice was issued on 4-3-1971 purported to be under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India treating the notice dated 2-9-1970 as provisional and asking the Petitioner to show cause against the punishment of discharge. The Petitioner submitted his explanation and pointed out that the evidence of Balaram as well as Rusia could not be taken into consideration; no enquiry had at all been held at any time and no, witnesses had been examined in support of the charges; and that the report of the Range Officer was prior w the framing of the charges. The order of discharge was passed on 18-9-1971 by the Conservator. The Petitioner preferred appeal before the Government. As the appeal was not deci