Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 2650 of 1961 is the appellant before us. He was a Sub-Magistrate in the service of the State. 2. The appellant was dismissed by Ext. P 8 dated 20 61961. The report of the Enquiry Commissioner is Ext. P-5 dated 7 91959 and the notice to show cause against the punishment proposed to be awarded by the Government is Ext. P-6 dated 8 21961. A perusal of Exts. P-5 and P-6 shows that the conclusions against the appellant by the Enquiry Commissioner and the Government were not identical and that it was the divergence that was the foundation for the proposal to dismiss the appellant from service. 3. The appellant's reply to Ext. P-6 is Ext. P-7 dated 25 21961. He wound up that reply with a prayer that the Government should allow him an opportunity to be heard through counsel. 4. No opportunity, however, was given to him to present his case either through counsel or in person. In AIR. 1956 Orissa 219 the Court said: "Though it is not necessary that an opportunity for a personal hearing should be given by the dismissing authority to constitute a reasonable opportunity required under Art.311 (2] yet it may be desirable in some cases that the dismissing authority should afford an opportunity to the civil servant concerned of a personal hearing." The direction in Art.311 (2) of the Constitution is that a Government servant before he is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank should be given "a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to Mm" except in the three cases specified in the proviso to that provision. The Constitution does not define what amounts to a reasonable opportunity and what is a reasonable opportunity in a given case will depend on the facts and circumstances of that case. 5. On the facts and circumstances of this case an opportunity for a personal hearing would have been just and proper, and our conclusion is that we should direct the Government to give the appellant such an opportunity and then confirm, modify or set aside Ext. P-8 in the light of that hearing. We do so. 6. Counsel for the appellant made various submissions before us in support of the contention that Ext. P-8 in the light of that hearing. We do so. 6. Counsel for the appellant made various submissions before us in support of the contention that Ext. P-8 should be quashed by an appropriate writ under Art.226 of the Constitution. One of those submissions was that two types of enquiry were possible at the relevant time; one under the Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122, and the other under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and that in directing an enquiry under the former and not under the latter the Government was guilty of discrimination and a violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. 7. The main basis of the submission was that the Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122, did not provide for any appeal from the order of the Government whereas the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, did by R.21 of those Rules: "A member of a State service shall be entitled to appeal to the Governor against an order passed by the State Government." Counsel for the appellant, however, stated that if a direction like the one embodied in Para.5 above is given, his client was uninterested in pressing the contentions urged by him and that they need not be dealt with in our judgment. In view of that submission we have not considered those contentions and they are not dealt with in this judgment. 8. We make it clear that the only direction that we are giving is the one embodied in Para.5 above. And that nothing stated in this judgment should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. The appeal is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs. Allowed.