Pre-suspension hearing not mandatory where immediate interim suspension serves public interest and advance notice would frustrate the action.

Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 was upheld as constitutionally valid despite not requiring a pre-suspension hearing. The Court held that natural justice applies to administrative action, but its content depends on the subject matter and urgency; where immediate action is needed and prior notice would defeat the purpose, a hearing is not mandatory. Interim suspension of a public servant accused of demanding or accepting illegal gratification was treated as a situation justifying prompt action in public interest, and the constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 21 failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 was ultra vires the Constitution for not requiring a prior hearing before placing a civil servant under interim suspension.

Analysis: The requirement of natural justice applies to administrative action, but its content varies with the subject matter and the urgency of the situation. A prior hearing is not an inflexible rule where immediate action is necessary and giving advance notice would defeat the purpose of the measure. Interim suspension of a public servant accused of demanding or accepting illegal gratification was held to be a case where prompt action in public interest could be taken without first affording an opportunity of hearing, because insisting on prior notice would frustrate the object of suspension.

Conclusion: Rule 5 was held not to be ultra vires the Constitution on the ground that it did not provide for a pre-suspension hearing; the challenge based on Articles 14, 19 and 21 failed.

---