Reasonable opportunity of defence under Article 311 was denied, vitiating the removal order.

Article 311 protects a Government servant from removal unless the enquiry affords a reasonable opportunity to defend the charge, and Rule 15(5) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 gives effect to that safeguard by allowing assistance from another Government servant and, in suitable cases, a legal practitioner. The request for legal assistance was refused on an irrelevant basis, namely that the presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, without addressing the appellant's grievance of facing a trained prosecutor. The appellant was also denied timely permission to secure assistance from another Government servant. These failures breached mandatory procedural safeguards and vitiated the removal order, which was struck down.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal from service was vitiated because the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity of defence under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

Analysis: Article 311 safeguards a Government servant against removal except after an enquiry affording a reasonable opportunity to defend the charge. Rule 15(5) gives content to that safeguard by permitting the Government servant to present his case with the assistance of another Government servant and, in appropriate circumstances, with a legal practitioner. The request for legal assistance was rejected on an irrelevant ground, namely that the presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, without considering the appellant's grievance that he was being opposed by a trained prosecutor. The record also showed that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to obtain assistance of another Government servant, because the necessary permissions were not obtained in time and the enquiry proceeded without that assistance. The failure to consider the relevant circumstances and to provide the facility contemplated by the rule amounted to breach of a mandatory procedural safeguard.

Conclusion: The appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of defence, the removal order was vitiated, and the order was rightly struck down in favour of the appellant.

---