P.C.Mallick, J. - (1.) The plaintiff was a constable in the Calcutta Police. He was a permanent incumbent in that office. On February 7, 1955, he was served with an order of dismissal. The order of dismissal is challenged in this suit, on the ground that it is unauthorised and contrary to the provision of the Constitution. A declaration is claimed that the order of dismissal is invalid and that the plaintiff is still in service. Alternatively, reinstatement or damages for wrongful dismissal is claimed. The suit is instituted after service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) In the written statement filed by the defendant it is contended that the order of dismissal is valid and not contrary to the provision of the Constitution. The validity and sufficiency of the notice under section, 80 has also been disputed. The learned Advocate-General, however, appearing for the defendant did not press this point and the only point I am invited to decide in this suit is whether the order of dismissal is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The facts relevant for the determination Of this question are not in dispute. No evidence, oral or documentary, has been tendered.
(3.) The order of dismissal reads as follows: "Government of West Bengal. Home Department Police ORDER No. 58 PLS Dated, Calcutta, the 7th February, 1955. Whereas, you Shri Naren Das, Constable of the Calcutta Police hold your office during the . pleasure of the Governor, and Whereas, the Governor is satisfied that you are entirely unsuitable for retention in service, and Whereas, the Governor is satisfied further that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to give you any Opportunity of showing cause against the order terminating your service, Now, therefore the Governor is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect By order of the Governor, R. K. Mitra Secy. to the Govt of West Bengal, Home Dept." The question for consideration is--does the order set out above satisfy the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution? Article 311 is hereunder set out: "311 (1) No person who is a member of a Civil Service of the Union or an all-India Service or a Civil Service of a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him: Provided that this clause shall not apply- (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to this conviction on a criminal charge; (b) Where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or (c) Where the President or Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that person such an opportunity. 3. If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give to any person an opportunity of showing cause under Clause (2). the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be final." This Article is the same as Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, with this difference that proviso (c) to Sub-section (2) of Article 311 was not in Section 240 of the Government of India Act. This is a new proviso.;