ORDER.-This Revision Petition will have to be allowed, upon the established facts of the record. The case against the revision petitioner was one under section 4 (1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and we may take it that the revision petitioner had consumed six doses of tincture zinge beris, and had exhibited some symptoms suggestive of consumption of alcohol. The revision petitioner examined a private medical practitioner (D.W. 1) to show that he (the revision petitioner) complained of dyspepsia, and obtained a prescription (Exhibit D-1) for six doses of tincture zinge beris. There is also evidence that the revision petitioner purchased the stuff from a certain chemist, P.W. 2 being the proprietor of the firm. Now, the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that, under section 16 of the Madras Prohibition Act, the Government have power to exempt certain categories of preparations containing alcohol, even in large proportions, from the operation of the Madras Prohibition Act, upon grounds of medical requirements, industrial uses, etc., nor is it denied that, in the relevant schedule, tincture zinge beris figures as one of the exempted categories. Hence, it is not an offence under section 4 (1) (j) of the Act to consume this stuff, and the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate would appear to be labouring under a misconception that, in order to escape a conviction under section 4 (1) (j), the accused must also prove that he obtained tincture zinge beris from a source authorised to sell the stuff. That is not the case, and the learned Public Prosecutor does not deny that, while the sale of tincture zinge beris without a permit or licence by concerned chemist may be some other offence, the revision petitioner will commit no offence, so long as he takes this exempted tincture under a medical prescription. Under the circumstances, therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioner under section (1964) 2 MLJ 97 (Mad) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Present : Mr. Justice K. Srinivasan Case Number(s) : W.P. No. 242 of 1962. Under the circumstances, therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioner under section (1964) 2 MLJ 97 (Mad) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Present : Mr. Justice K. Srinivasan Case Number(s) : W.P. No. 242 of 1962. Judgement Date : Thursday 27th of February 1964 Murugadass .....Appellant(s) Versus State of Madras represented by District Revenue Officer, Tirukoilure, South Arcot District and another .....Respondent(s) Constitution of India (1950), Article 311 — Notice to show cause against penalty proposed to be inflicted — If essential where the punishment is only one of suspension for a short period of six months as a result of departmental proceedings. A punishment of suspension for a short period of six months as a result of departmental proceedings is not one of the type of punishments covered by Article 311 of the Constitution and where it is proposed to inflict such a punishment it is unnecessary to issue a second show cause notice to the person proceeded against. There is no violation of the constitutional guarantee if such a notice is not given. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Reference No. F. 106/61 dated 1st May, 1961, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilure as confirmed by the order of the District Revenue Officer, South Arcot in Reference B. 2.36682/61 dated 20th November, 1961, and quash the said orders and made therein. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- (1964) 2 M.L.J. 97 at page 98 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. C. Venkatachari, for Petitioner. The Additional Government Pleader, for Respondents. The Court made the following Order. — The petitioner is the village Headman of Saravanapakkam Village. As a result of certain departmental proceedings against him, he was suspended from office for six months and this order was confirmed on appeal. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and his complaint is that there has been no proper enquiry in respect of the charges and that no further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment has been given to him and that this failure constitutes a violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is really unnecessary to set out the averments found in the counter-affidavit, for, on the facts disclosed in the affidavit of the petitioner, it is seen that there is no substance in the complaint. The two charges against the petitioner were that he made certain collections which he delayed to remit to the Treasury. In one case the amount collected on 31st May, 1959 was not remitted till 5th November, 1960. In the other case there was a delay of two months in making the remittance in question. The petitioner did not, in fact, deny that the remittances were delayed. He gave some explanation with regard to the delay. His complaint that certain persons were not examined is wholly unconvincing, when it is seen that the delays as such were not denied at all. On this aspect of the matter, the counter-affidavit points out that the one person whom it was necessary to examine, namely, Periyan, was in fact examined in the course of the proceedings. The contention that the second show cause notice should have been given to the petitioner and that the guarantee under Article 311 has failed in this case cannot be accepted. Clearly, Article 311 covers only certain types of punishment and the punishment of suspension for a short period is not one of them. Where it is proposed to inflict such a punishment, it is unnecessary to issue a second show cause notice to the person proceeded against. There is no violation of the constitutional guarantee. The petition is wholly devoid of substance at d is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. K.S. --------- Petition dismissed. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.