JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 311 of the Constitution against an order dated 25- 9-1958 passed by the Director of Gram Panchayats dismissing the Petitioner from service with effect from that date. 2. The Petitioner was working as an Audit Inspector of the Gram Panchayat at Ghatgaon in Keonjhar district. On 26-10-1957 he applied for three days casual leave from the 28th to 30th October 1957. He was granted casual leave but did not rejoin duty at Ghatgaon on the 31st October 1957. On the other hand he applied for extension of leave on the ground of illness supported by certificates from a private medical practitioner of Cuttack Town. Ultimately he reported himself for duty on 26-4-1958, but the superior officers were not satisfied with his conduct and on 7-5-1958 the following two charges were framed against him and he was caned upon to show cause why he may not be dismissed from service: (i) That the Petitioner absented himself from 31-10-1957 from duty without authority by putting in applications from time to time for extension of leave on flimsy grounds. (ii) That during the period from 27-10-1957 to 31-10-1957 the Petitioner obtained leave of absence on false grounds". The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. But the authorities were not satisfied with his explanation and then on 19-8-1958 the Director of Gram Panchayats gave a second notice calling upon him to show cause why he may not be dismissed from service. He also gave him an opportunity to be heard in person on 27-8-1958 if so desired by the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted a lengthy explanation to the second notice also denying the allegations. Ultimately the Director of Gram Panchayats by his aforesaid order dated 27-9-1951 dismissed the Petitioner from service after taking into consideration his part conduct. 3. There can be no doubt that on the facts stated above, which have not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, there has not been substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution, and with Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Once specific charges, involving such a serious punishment as dismissal, are framed against a public servant and he is called upon to submit his explanation, the enquiring officer must first hold an enquiry if the delinquent servant denies the charges. Once specific charges, involving such a serious punishment as dismissal, are framed against a public servant and he is called upon to submit his explanation, the enquiring officer must first hold an enquiry if the delinquent servant denies the charges. Here the essence of the two charges was that the medical certificates produced by the Petitioner were not reliable and that he absented himself from duty on flimsy or false grounds. A regular enquiry was therefore necessary and the delinquent public servant would then have been in a position to examine the medical officer, who gave him the certificates, to show that he was really seriously ill as alleged by him. By depriving him of this opportunity to establish his defence and rejecting his explanation straight away as false, the Director of Gram Panchayats, deprived the Petitioner of the Constitutional guarantee provided in Article 311, read with rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 4. Mr. S. Mohanty, for the Government, urged that though no enquiry was held prior to the issue of the second notice, nevertheless, when in the second notice, the Petitioner was informed that he could appear in person he must be deemed to have been given an adequate opportunity to establish his defence if he so desired, and that the conduct of the Petitioner in declining to avail himself of this opportunity of personal hearing would, in the circumstances of this case, amount to a refusal on his part to submit to a further enquiry and that consequently there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. 5. It is true that if no regular enquiry is held prior to the issue of the second notice, under Article 311, it is open to the delinquent public servant, while showing cause against the second notice, to ask for an enquiry; but an enquiry of that type is different from a mere personal hearing by his superior officer. Hence, merely because the Petitioner was not agreeable to appear in person before the Director of Gram Panchayats it cannot be held that he refused to submit to a regular enquiry. 6. The net result therefore is that on a mer perusal of the explanation given by the Petitioner to the charges, the Director of Gram panchayats has rejected it as unsatisfactory and dismissed him from service. 6. The net result therefore is that on a mer perusal of the explanation given by the Petitioner to the charges, the Director of Gram panchayats has rejected it as unsatisfactory and dismissed him from service. The order of dismissal cannot therefore stand and must be quashed. 7. We find however that while the departmental proceedings were going on against the Petitioner the Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation from service, on 1-7-1958. To that Government sent a reply on 8-8-1958 (see annexure C appended to the State?s counter affidavit) saying that the question of "acceptance of his resignation will be considered only after finalisation of the proceedings drawn up against him". Now that the departmental proceedings have been completely quashed, Government, may take up the question of acceptance of the Petitioner?s resignation. 8. This petition is therefore allowed, the order of the Director of Grama Panchayat dated 27th. September 1958 dismissing the Petitioner from service is set aside, and the entire proceedings against him are quashed. The Petitioner will get the costs of this application. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-(Rupees one hundred only.) Barman, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed