( 1 ) C. S. Sharma has filed this petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his dismissal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner alleges that he- was appointed Sales Tax Officer on 25-1-1949. In that capacity he was posted at Hathras from April 1950 to September 1952. During the month of November 1952 an ex parte enquiry was started by the Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax against the petitioner and on 18-2-1953 the petitioner was suspended. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 8th July, 1953. He gave an application (annexure 8) on July 10, 1953 asking for an inspection of the evidence against him. By annexure 9 dated July 17, 1953 the Commissioner sales Tax U. P. asked him to submit his explanation before the opportunity to examine the papers the petitioner wanted to inspect was given to him. On 12-8-1953 the petitioner submitted an explanation claiming an opportunity to be heard in person and naming three defence witnesses "for clearing the charge of the purchase of the car". By annexure 19 the Commissioner Sales Tax informed the petitioner that he would be permitted to produce his three defence witnesses and that his request for representation through lawyer was rejected. On 14-11-1953 the Commissioner Sales Tax again wrote to the petitioner forwarding copies of eight statements and stating that the petitioners request for a copy of the letter dated november 7, 1952 from Ram Krishna Das and a copy of his statement November 8, 1952 was rejected. The Commissioner Sales Tax held the inquiry on December 8 and 9, 1953 and then on 25-1-1954 called upon the petitioner to submit a list of defence witnesses. At this the petitioner wanted 20 days further time for furnishing the list as "some of the prospective witnesses. . . . . . . have gone out and their present addresses are not known". This request was refused and then on 10-2-1954 the petitioner submitted another application which is annexure 14. No reply was received and then on 24-2-1954 by annexure 15 the petitioner submitted a list of four witnesses. The fact that calls for notice is that out of the witnesses mentioned in that list only two witnesses were of the list previously submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the addresses of these two persons were known to the petitioner throughout. A doubt, therefore, arises whether the petitioner was not asking for all this time only to arrange for the other two witnesses who were named by him for the first time. One month elapsed and no reply was received. The petitioner thereupon sent a reminder on March 25, 1954 and a subsequent reminder on 10-4-1954. In April the enquiring officer,. e. , Commissioner, Sales Tax submitted his report. In May 1954 the petitioner submitted an application to the State Government praying for an opportunity for examination of his defence witnesses and for a personal hearing. This application is annexure 18 to the petition. No reply was received, On 20th July, 1954 the petitioner received a show cause notice (annexure 21 ). The petitioner submitted his reply but by annexure 26 the State government passed an order of dismissal on 26th July, 1955. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Governor but this appeal was dismissed on 29th June, 1956 and then the petitioner preferred this petition on 24th September, 1956.

( 3 ) THIS petition is opposed by the State Government but it is not necessary to give the details of the counter-affidavit as the points raised will appear sufficiently from the discussion which follows. I have heard the learned counsel for line parties at length.

( 4 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had not had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his defence inasmuch as the officer appointed by the State government was biased against him. This plea of bias was not raised in the original petition. It was only as a result of annexure m filed by the State Government that this