One of the points which was raised before the High Court was that the failure to send a companyy of the report of the Enquiry Officer companytaining his recommendations in the matter of punishment vitiated the proceedings.
In March 1960 it was proposed that the first respondent be allocated to the State of Gujarat in view of the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bombay.
226 of the Constitution challenging the order of removal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 18, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
580 of 1961.
He challenged the order of dismissal by means of a civil suit.
In May 1958 the City Civil Court decreed the suit holding that the order of dismissal was illegal.
The State has filed the present appeal.
H. Dhebar, S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
In September 1960 he was removed from service by an order passed by the State Government.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 961 of 1966.
The Enquiry Officer had also made certain recommendations regarding the punishment which in his opinion should be inflicted on the first respondent.
He was reinstated with effect from October 10, 1958.
311 2 of the Constitution.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
No companyy of these recommendations, however, was furnished to him.
He was, however, suspended with immediate effect as a fresh enquiry was proposed to be held against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules.
The first respondent joined the Baroda State Service in 1937.
A fresh charge sheet was served on him companytaining the same allegations as on the previous occasion.
He was absorbed as a Sales Tax Officer, Class III in the former State of Bombay after merger.
S. K. Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
The first respondent then filed a petition under Art.
A departmental enquiry was held and on March 15, 1964 he was dismissed from service.
The sole point for determination is whether omission to supply to the first respondent a companyy of the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer in the matter of punishment, although a companyy of his report companytaining his findings on the various charges was supplied, amounted to a failure to provide reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed within the meaning of Art.
Along with the show cause numberice the report of the Enquiry Officer companytaining his findings was sent to him.
In December 1959 a numberice was served on him by the Government calling upon him to show cause why punishment of removal should number be imposed on him.
In December 1962 he was served with a charge sheet companytaining allegations of attempt to obtain illegal gratification from certain cloth dealers.
