Article 311(2) of the Constitution requires that a government servant be given a reasonable opportunity to deny his guilt, defend himself against the charges, and make representations as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave granted by this Court to the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed on 1/11/1955, by a Single Judge of the Punjab High Court sitting in the Circuit Bench at Delhi in regular second appeal No. 28-D of 1955.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to the present appeal are shortly as follows: On 6/04/1943, the appellant was appointed a sub-inspector under the Delhi Audit Fund. In February 1947, he was transferred to the Cooperative Societies Department and posted as sub-inspector in the Milk Scheme. On 3/07/1947, the appellant was confirmed by the then Deputy Commissioner of Delhi who was also the ex-officio Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On 1/08/1948, the appellant was transferred to the Rehabilitation Department of the Co-operative Societies and posted as sub-inspector. On 1/07/1949, the appellant was suspended by the then Deputy Commissioner Delhi. On 9/07/1949, the appellant was served with a charge sheet under R. 6 (1) of the Rules which had been framed by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi to provide for the appointment to the subordinate services under his administrative control and the discipline and rights of appeal of members of those services. After formulating eight several charges the document concluded as follows:"you are, therefore, called upon to show cause why you should not be dismissed from the service. You should also state in your reply whether you wish to be heard in person or whether you will produce defence. The reply should reach the Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, within ten days from the receipt of this charge sheet. "the charge sheet was signed by Shri Rameshwar Dayal who was at that time the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi and was admittedly the authority competent to dismiss the appellant.

( 3 ) THE appellant duly submitted his explanation in writing. One Shri Mahipal Singh, Inspector, Co-operative Societies was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi the Officer to hold the enquiry. The appellant attended two sittings before the Enquiry Officer and then applied to the Deputy Commissioner to entrust the enquiry to some Gazetted Officer under him. This request of the appellant was rejected and he was informed accordingly. Indeed, the appellant was warned that the Enquiry Officer had been authorised to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte if the appellant failed to attend the enquiry. The appellant, however, did not, after 20/10/1949, attend any further sittings before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer thereupon framed four additional charges against the appellant, namely, (1) for his refusal to attend the enquiry, (2) for his refusal to accept the service of the order of the Enquiry Officer, (3) for his absence without permission and (4) for his misconduct in snatching away papers from one Mohd. Ishaq and using unparliamentary and threatening language.

( 4 ) IT appears that at or about this time the appellant became involved in a criminal case on a charge under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and on 30/10/1949, he was actually arrested but was released on bail two or three days later. Eventually on 20/05/1950, the appellant was discharged from the criminal charge.

( 5 ) ON 14/11/1951, the appellant was served with a notice signed by one Shri Vasudev Taneja, Superintendent. The notice was in the following terms: "please note that you are to appear before Shri J. B. Tandon, I A. S. , Additional District Magistrate, on 24/11/1951, at 10-30 a. m. , in his Court room in connection with the departmental enquiry pending against you. " The language employed in the notice does lend some support to the contention that the Enquiry Officer, Shri Mahipal Singh, had not concluded the enquiry entrusted to him and that the departmental enquiry was still pending.

( 6 ) PURSUANT to the notice the appellant appeared before Shri J. B. Tandon and urged two points, namely, (1) that the enquiry of the charges framed against him ought t