B.D.Gupta, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by the Union of India against an appellate decree declaring that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff-respondent was void and inoperative and the plaintiff-respondent continued to remain in the service of the appellant as before. Rs. 943 as arrears of pay were also awarded by the same decree.
(2.)THE plaintiff was skilled fitter working in the Wagon Repairs Shop at Ghaziabad. As a result of some incident the plaintiff was served with charge-sheet dated the 21st of December, 1954. A departmental enquiry took place at which witnesses were examined and the plaintiff was given opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and adduce defence. The enquiring officer submitted a report to the effect that the charges had been established. Another notice was thereafter served on the plaintiff which runs as follows:
"Further considering the finding of the Enquiry Committee and your explanation to the charge sheet dated 21-12-54 issued to you, you have been held responsible for the following charges, for assaulting Baij Nath Asstt. Charge-man on Friday dated 10-12-54 near the line 61 inside Wagon Repairs Shop, Ghaziabad...... Accordingly I have formed the opinion that you should be removed from service. You are hereby given 7 days clear time from the receipt of this notice to show cause why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on you. Any representation that you may make in this connection will be taken into consideration before passing final orders." No copy of the finding which had been recorded as a result of the enquiry was sent with this notice, or furnished to the plaintiff otherwise, until the order removing the plaintiff from service was passed. After appealing to the higher authorities the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal. The main ground in support of the plaintiff's claim was that he had not been afforded the opportunity provided by Art. 311 of the Constitution of India.

A number of defences were raised, but the only one which has been raised for consideration at the hearing of this appeal was as to whether there had been contravention of the guarantee contained in Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. The learned Munsif held against the plaintiff with the result that he dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the appellate Judge took the view that there had been contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution with the result that he decreed the plaintiff's suit in terms stated earlier in this judgment. Thereupon the defendant filed this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find the appeal devoid of force.

(3.)THERE is no controversy, so far as the first stage is concerned, that no illegality or irregularity had taken place. As regards the second stage, the learned Judge relied on the admitted circumstance that copy of the finding recorded as a result of the enquiry held against the plaintiff was not supplied to the plaintiff-respondent, either along with the second notice to show cause against the proposed punishment, or even thereafter before the order removing the plaintiff from service was passed. The learned Judge relied on a number of decisions which need not be set forward.