This numberice referred to the disciplinary proceedings held against the respondent and added that the respondent was thereby required under clause 2 of Art.
The Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam, then proceeded to hold an enquiry and after companysidering the evidence adduced before him, he made the report on April 12, 1960.
One of tile points urged by him was that he had number been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action which was ultimately taken against him under Art.
311 of the Constitution.
The numberice further stated that a companyy of the report of the Enquiring officer in the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the respondent was enclosed.
311 2 and he urged that the companytravention of Art.
2 served a second numberice on the respondent on June 1, 1960.
The Governor of Assam further ordered that the respondent will be on probation in the said Class 11 Service for two years, subject to termination, if his work and companyduct were number found satisfactory.
It is against this order that the appellants have companye to this Court by special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated January 22, 1962, of the Assam High Court in Gauhati, in Civil Rule No.
311 of the Constitution to submit his explanation if any, why the penalty of removal from service should number be imposed upon him.
The respondent then challenged the validity of this order by a writ petition in the High Court of .Judicature at Assam on August, 24, 1961.
311 2 rendered the impugned order invalid.
369 of 1961.
On receiving this numberice, the respondent submitted his explanation on June 21, 1960 in respect of the charges which had been held proved by the Enquiring officer.
After companysidering the explanation thus submitted by the respondent, the Governor of Assam was pleased to reduce in rank the respondent who was on probation in the Assam Civil Service, Class I to the Assam Civil Service Class Il, perma nently, with effect from the date he takes over as such.
In this report the Enquiry officer found that out of the 11 charges drawn up against the respondent, 6 had number been proved and of the remaining 5 charges, two had been fully established they were charges 7 and 10 and the other three charges Nos.
On January 13, 1960 the respondent submitted an elaborate explanation in respect of all the charges.
The respondent was to draw his pay in the minimum of the scale of pay of A. C. S., Class 11 and his seniority in the cadre would be determined with effect from the date of his joining.
This Order was made on July 8, 1961.
After this report was received, appellant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
enquiry and to report to appellant No.
1 , 2 and 4 had been partially established.
C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent, 1963.
1, the State of Assam, as an Extra Assistant Commissioner, Shillong.
February 12.
On December 11, 1959, the second appellant, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, served on the respondent a charge sheet companytaining eleven specific charges and called upon him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service or otherwise punished under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control Appeal Rules read with Art.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the scope and effect of the provisions companytained in Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
832 of 1962.
The respondent was told that he had to submit his explanation through the Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam, on or before June 18, 1960.
The respondent Bimal Kumar Pandit was serving appellant No.
C. Setalvad and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
The said numberice further informed the respondent that the Governor of Assam had been pleased to authorise the Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam, to companyduct the.
The said question arises in this way.
The report made these findings and proceeded to add that the lapses proved did number cast any serious doubt on the honesty and integrity of the delinquent officer, although the evidence led in respect of charges 1 and 2 proved his inexperience and that led under charges 2 and 4 showed his irresponsibility.
He urged other companytentions also, but those have been rejected by the High Court, while his main point under Art.
