Reasonable opportunity in disciplinary enquiries requires an oral hearing when relevant oral evidence is sought.

Rule 55 was treated as mandatory in disciplinary proceedings and was read with Article 311(2) to require a reasonable opportunity to defend, including an oral enquiry where the delinquent officer so desired. Once the respondent asked to lead oral evidence and examine relevant doctors on the alleged disobedience, the enquiry officer was bound to fix a date, give notice, and record that evidence. While the officer could regulate the enquiry, restrict irrelevant cross-examination, and reject irrelevant witnesses for recorded reasons, he could not refuse any oral enquiry at all on a relevant issue. Denial of that opportunity amounted to contravention of Rule 55 and denial of reasonable opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental enquiry complied with Article 311(2) and Rule 55 by affording the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including an oral enquiry and the chance to examine witnesses.

Analysis: Rule 55 required a written statement of defence and provided that an oral enquiry shall be held if the delinquent officer so desired or the authority so directed. The requirement was held to be mandatory and rooted in natural justice and fair play. Once the respondent expressed a desire to lead oral evidence and to examine his doctors on the issue of his alleged disobedience, the enquiry officer was obliged to fix a date for recording that evidence and give due notice. Although the enquiry officer could regulate the enquiry, control irrelevant cross-examination, and refuse irrelevant witnesses for recorded reasons, he could not refuse to hold any oral enquiry at all when oral evidence was sought on a relevant issue.

Conclusion: The failure to hold an oral enquiry and to allow the respondent to adduce relevant oral evidence amounted to denial of a reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) and contravention of Rule 55.

---