“We have no doubt in our minds that in this case also justice and fair play demand that the Government should have given the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause why an order affecting his pay and emoluments to his prejudice should not be made. The decision in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu’s case had been cited before the High Court. The High Court, however, sought to distinguish that case from the instant case on facts. The High Court held that since in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu’s case the proceedings had been dropped and the officer concerned reinstated, he never got an opportunity to show to the appointing authority that his suspension had been unjustified and that he was entitled to full pay and allowances, while-in the instant case the appellant has already, according to the High Court, received all reasonable opportunity to show cause against the punishment that has been meted out against him. With respect, we do not think that-there is any real difference in substance between the facts of the instant case and those in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu’s case. The appellant in the instant case did not really get an opportunity to defend himself against Charge 1 (b). It will be remembered that in this case also the Government abandoned the proceedings against the appellant with regard to Charge 1 (b). Had the proceedings been completed, it is not altogether impossible that the appellant would have been exonerated also of that charge just as he had been exonerated of Charge 1 (a) earlier. To that extent the appellant did not get any opportunity to show that the suspension order against him had been unjustified and that he was, therefore, entitled to full pay and allowances. From this point of view there is really no difference between the instant case and the case of Gopala Krishna Naidu.”
