P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

HABIBULLAH KHAN, J.‑This is a writ petition filed under Article 170 of the Constitution by an Ex. D. S. P. Mr. C. Samuels challenging the order of the Provincial Government where any he has been dismissed from service. The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of the petition are, that the petitioner was serving in the Scientific. Branch of the C.I.D. of the former North‑West Frontier Province in the capacity of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, when he was suspended from service on the 1st of October, 1951, on miscellaneous charges of misconduct. An enquiry into the allegations against him was conducted, and he was' ultimately prosecuted in a Court of law on a few out of many charges He was acquitted. Later another few out of the remaining charges were selected and Mr. A. M. K. Mazari, Assistant Commissioner Nowshera was appointed a Special Enquiry Officer under the Public Enquiry Act to conduct enquiry against him. The Enquiry Officer after completing his enquiry submitted his report to the Provincial Government, holding him guilt' of the charges. On the 2nd December, 1954, the Home Secretary on behalf of the Provincial Government issued a notice to the petitioner to show‑cause, as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The show‑cause notice reads as follows :‑ " A copy of the report of the Special Enquiry Officer is sent herewith and you are called upon to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of this notice, why you should not be dismissed from Government service and disqualified from future employment." The petitioner, after he was allowed extension of time on his request, submitted his explanation to the Provincial Govern ment against the proposed punishment. On the 7th February, 1955, the Provincial Government dismissed him from service and the order was duly published in the Official Gazette. The learned counsel for the petitioner has waived all the objections raised in the petition, except the one relating to the illegality of the show‑cause notice, and has contended that the Shaw‑cause notice served on his client did not comply with the requirements of section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, and that as such the order of dismissal was illegal. His argument is, that the Provincial Government while giving him the notice did not inform him of the grounds of his dismissal formulated in support of the contempt penalty. According to him, it was incumbent on the Government to supply the petitioner with the grounds and the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report. We concede that when a show‑cause notice is served on an accused officer be should also be informed of the grounds in support only in a case when a bare show‑cause notice is issued and it is not accompanied by the report of the Enquiry Officer. In the present case, the entire report of the Special Enquiry Officer was despatched to the petitioner along with the show‑cause notice, and therefore he was fully aware of the grounds on which he was being dismissed. With the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer in his hand, it did not fie in his mouth to say that he was ignorant of the grounds of his contemplated dismissal before he submitted his explanation in reply to the show‑cause notice. This being the case, we are firmly of the opinion, that the petitioner was served with a proper show‑cause notice and was afforded a reasonable opportunity, as required by section 240 (3) of the Government o f India Act. Accordingly, we hold the order of dismissal as perfectly legal, and dismiss the petition with costs. Pleader's fee Rs. one hundred (Rs. 100 only). A. H. Petition dismissed.