Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner Ramesh Chandra was a clerk in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kotah Division. Certain complaints were noticed by the higher authorities and the Registrar framed charge-sheet about the various items of misconduct (it is not necessary to mention them in this judgment) of Rameshchandra on 7th April, 1954. THE petitioner gave his explanation and a certain departmental enquiry followed. THE Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mr. R. D. Bhargave passed the following order on 4th October, 1954 : - "to the charges levelled against Shri Ramesh Chandra; Lower Division Clerk (noted in the margin), he has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation taking into account (1) his past record at service which is also indeed, unsatisfactory, and (2) the fact that warnings given to him in the past have had no effect on him, his case calls for dismissal. Accordingly he is ordered to be dismissed. " Ramesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (Bapna J.) THE charges noted on the margin are - " (1) Missing of answer books, charge-sheet issued under No. Nil dated 29. 6. 54 by Education Officers, Cooperative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (2) Complaints against Shri M. D. Pareek regarding mis-appropriation. Charge-sheet issued under No. 2025 dated 5th April, 1954. " The petitioner filed an appeal and his appeal was rejected on 11th December, 1956 by the Government. The case of the petitioner is that he was not served with a notice under Art. 311 Clause (2) of the Constitution, to show cause why he should not be dismissed and, therefore, the order of dismissal dated 4th October, 1954 was invalid and should be set aside. He admitted having received a notice to show cause on 1st June, 1956 by the successor Registrar Shri Sampatmal, but urged that Shri Sampatmal did not exercise his mind on the explanation furnished by him nor it was so done by the Government and, therefore, the subsequent notice would not validate the previous order of dismissal. On behalf of the State Mr, Chatterjee, Assistant Government Advocate, contended that although there was initial defect of service of notice under Art. 311 (2), yet the Government while considering the appeal of the petitioner directed the Registrar to give a fresh notice, and thereafter to submit his recommendation. The file containing the orders in this behalf were produced. It appears from the perusal of the record now submitted that the objection as to want of notice under Art. 311 (2) was taken by the Public Service Commission, and the Government by its letter of 18th June, 1955 directed the Registrar - "a show cause notice, which is obligatory under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India should have been served upon Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma and any statement submitted by him taken into account before the order for dismissal was passed by you. This was not done and is a serious lacuna. It may please be done now and the papers returned to this Department together with any statement that Shri Ramesh Chandra might submit. " Shri Sampatmal seems to have re-examined the case and recorded an order on 1st June, 1956, that the charges had been proved. He also recorded the previous conduct of Shri Ramesh Chandra, according to the record available and then passed an order, the relevant portion of which is as follows : - "in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the previous conduct of Shri Ramesh Chandra, this notice is given to him to show cause why he be not dismissed from service. He should appear before me in my office at 8 A. M. on June 7, 1956, to show cause why the punishment proposed be not awarded to him. " In forwarding a copy of the above order, it was specifically mentioned that he should show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Mr. Ramesh Chandra gave his explanation and certain evidence was further recorded, as requested by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Thereafter, on 18th June, 1956, Shri Sampatmal recorded an order stating the facts and the explanation and the subsequent evidence and finally that "in the circumstances, I see no reason to differ from the finding of my predecessor in office. The punishment meted out to him seems to be justified. The record of the case shall be submitted to the Secretary to the Government as desired. " It was thereafter that the Government passed the following order purporting to dismiss his appeal : - "your appeal No. 21 dated 14th October, 1954. The Government has after a careful consideration decided that there are no grounds for revision of the orders of dismissal passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan. The appeal has been consequently rejected:" Learned counsel has relied on the case of Niranjan Lal Gaur vs. The State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ Petition No. 153 of 1955, decided on 6th March, 1957) where the defect of notice under Article 311 (2) was subsequently sought to be made good by the issue of notice but this Court did not hold it to be sufficient for the purpose of validating the earlier order of dismissal. That case is distinguishable on facts. In that case there was further observation that the authority issuing notice under Art. 311 (2) did not itself come to the conclusion prior to the issuing of notice that the charges had been established. It was also observed that the explanation furnished by the petitioner did not appear to have been looked into and a finding was recorded after the explanation had been furnished. It was, therefore, held that the mere issue of a notice under Art. 311 (2), after the order of dismissal had been passed and without applying the mind by the authority concerned both prior to the issue of notice and subsequent to the furnishing to the explanation, was not sufficient compliance of Art 311 (2), and the order of dismissal passed earlier continued to remain invalid, no matter that it was confirmed by an order dismissing the appeal. In the present case the Government by its order of 18th June, 1955, came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal had not been properly passed and directed the Registrar to serve show cause notice on Ramesh Chandra and then submit the papers together with the explanation of Ramesh Chandra, if any, to the Government. The succeeding Registrar Mr. Sampatmal again looked into the papers and came to the conclusion that the charges had been proved and he gave notice under Art. 311 (2) to show cause why Shri Ramesh Chandra should not be dismissed. This was followed by the explanation furnished by Shri Ramesh Chandra and examination of certain witnesses at his instance and the record was thereafter again examined by Shri Sampatmal and he came to the conclusion that he saw no reason to differ from the finding of his predecessor and the punishment meted out to him seems to be justified, and he sent the record to the Government. The Government recorded in its' order that after careful consideration there were ho grounds to interfere in the order of dismissal. The proper effect of these orders is that the order of dismissal came to be passed by the Government on 11th December, 1956, although the order is so worded as showing that the earlier order of 4th October, 1954 is maintained. As a matter of fact when the Government directed that a notice under Art. 311 (2) should be given to Ramesh Chandra, it accepted one of the contentions of Ramesh Chandra that the order of previous dismissal had been erroneously passed, and the issue of the fresh order to show cause virtually accepted his being in service. The orders are not happily worded but on a careful consideration of the circumstances and facts of the case, we are of opinion that the provisions of sec. 311 (2) have been substantially complied with. The only grievance that the petitioner can now have is about the date upto which he may be entitled to emoluments or subsistence allowance, as the case may be. That matter he can agitate if he so desires before the Government or by a separate suit in a competent court. The constitutional provisions not having been transgressed no relief can be granted by this Court. We are also satisfied that ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner to explain his conduct. The petition is accordingly dismissed, and there will be no order as to costs. . ;