A civil servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him before he can be removed from service.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Bhopal upholding the decree of the First Sub-Judge of Bhopal declaring that the suspension and removal of the plaintiff-respondent from the service of the former Bhopal State was illegal, ultra vires and inoperative and that the plaintiff-respondent still continued to be in service and in the post and cadre which he held at the time of his suspension.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that the plaintiff entcred the service of the former Bhopal state in 1948. After working in various capacities, he was appointed as a superintendent in the Home Department on 14-6-1952. In' August 1952, the bhopal Government received a report that the respondent Ladli Saran had misbehaved with one Miss Nirmala Kumari on 21-8-1952 at the Laxmi Talkies in ,bhopal. On receipt of this report, the Chief Commissioner made an order on 249-1952 suspending Ladli Saran and directing that an inquiry be made into the conduct of Ladli Saran by the Chief Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An enquiry was accordingly held. During the course of enquiry Ladli Saran cross-examined the witnesses produced to support the charge of misbehavior with Nirmal Kumari on 21st August 1952 and was also permitted to examine on his behalf such of the witnesses who were under the administrative control of the Bhopal Government and to produce other witnesses whom he wished to examine to rebut the charge. At the end of the enquiry, the Chief Secretary reported to the Government on 19th november 1952 that the charge against Ladli Saran that on 21st August 1952 he 'indulged in conduct unworthy of a public servant and a gentleman" by molesting the modesty of one Kumari Nirmala, daughter of Shri Har Narain, was established. A copy of the findings was given to the respondent. The findings of the Chief secretary were accepted by the Government and thereupon a notice was served on the respondent Ladli Saran on 8th December 1952 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from service for his misbehaviour and attempt to commit a criminal assault on Kumari Nirmala at Laxmi Talkies on 21st august 1952 at 6 P. M. On receipt of the charge and a copy of the findings, Ladli saran addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary on 8th December 1952 stating that copies of the statements of all the witnesses on which the findings were based be supplied to him. The statements which Ladli Saran demanded were, however not supplied to him. On 9th December, 1952, the respondent was informed that the chief Secretary's findings had been accepted by the Government and all that he was required now was to show cause against the proposed punishment. Thereafter on 12th December 1952, Ladli Saran presented an application before the Chief secretary pleading that he had a large family to maintain, that the punishment of dismissal would be a hardship to him and his family, and that he might be forgiven for his. lapse. This plea was, however, rejected and on 24th April 1953 the Chief commissioner, Bhopal, made an order removing Ladli Saran from service. Thereafter Ladli Saran moved the Chief Commissioner for a reconsideration of his cast. But this was also rejected. Ladli Saran then filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Bhopal, challenging the validity of his suspension and removal from service. This petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had the alternative remedy of a suit. Ladli Saran then instituted a suit in the Court of the First Sub-Judge, Bhopal, alleging that the order of removal from service passed against him by the government of Bhopal was ultra vires inasmuchas before passing this order the mandatory requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution had not been complied with. He also averred that the order of suspension was also illegal inasmuch as it amounted to hi