Short Note : 1. The respondent plaintiff who was a forest guard under the service of the appellant-defendant filed the suit for declaration that his dismissal from service was illegal and unconstitutional. According to the respondent-plaintiff the departmental enquiry which was held against him for the investigation of charges was defective for the various reasons including non-compliance of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) in not giving second opportunity and also denial of natural justice in not giving personal hearing, before passing of the dismissal order. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the D. E. did not suffer from any infirmity and the order of dismissal was correct. In appeal, the lower appellate Court decided all points against him, but allowed the appeal on two grounds, namely, that there was no sufficient compliance with the mandatory requirements of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution as after the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and findings against the respondent-plaintiff, a notice ought to have been given to the respondent-plaintiff to say as against those findings contained in the report. The show cause notice (Ex.D-55) which was given by the punishing authority to the respondent-plaintiff before passing of the dismissal order was held not sufficient to comply with the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and, also there had been denial of opportunity in the matter of not giving personal hearing by the punishing authority before passing of the dismissal order. 2. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-State this Court is of opinion that the appeal has merit and as such it must be allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate Court has gone against the appellate-State on two counts and as such this Court shall deal with each one of them as to test whether the appellate judgement is correct or not. As regards the first ground that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for one more notice besides the show-cause notice (Ex. D-55) after the report and finding of the Enquiry Officer, is clearly contrary to law. In the instant case it is clear from the record and also as found by the lower appellate Court that after the Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Ex. D-55) after the report and finding of the Enquiry Officer, is clearly contrary to law. In the instant case it is clear from the record and also as found by the lower appellate Court that after the Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Ex. D-54) to the punishing authority against the respondent-plaintiff, the said authority being satisfied with the conclusions arrived at in the report of the Enquiry Officer as against the respondent-plaintiff it gave second opportunity to him as contemplated under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India by service of show-cause Notice (Ex.D-55). No other notice was required to be given after the report of the Enquiry Officer. As such this Court holds that the lower appellate Court was clearly in error in holding to the contrary when in fact the respondent-plaintiff was given due opportunity or to say second notice as contemplated by Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution before imposition of the punishment, State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, AIR 1963 SC 1612 , relied on. Ganesh Balkrishna Deshmukh v. State of M. B., AIR 1956 MB 172, dissented from. 3. The second ground mentioned in the judgment of the lower appellate Court for decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, related to the denial of giving an opportunity of being heard in person to the respondent-plaintiff by the punishing authority before passing of the dismissal order. The finding in this regard by the lower appellate Court is clearly based on the wrong premises by adverting itself to the documents (Ex. D-8, D-9, and D-10). These are the applications which were made by the respondent plaintiff prior to the start of the D. E. and in which he had demanded hearing, which was in fact given to him. Therefore, these applications do not survive for the purposes of the demand for the personal hearing after the enquiry report was submitted and before the punishing authority passed the dismissal order against him. In the show-cause notice which was served on the respondent-plaintiff it was clearly mentioned that if he would like to be heard in person. In reply (Ex. D-56) to that show cause notice the respondent plaintiff did not make demand for the personal hearing from the punishing authority. In the show-cause notice which was served on the respondent-plaintiff it was clearly mentioned that if he would like to be heard in person. In reply (Ex. D-56) to that show cause notice the respondent plaintiff did not make demand for the personal hearing from the punishing authority. That being so, if no personal hearing was given by that authority before passing of the dismissal order, it cannot be urged in any manner that denial of that opportunity was fatal to the passing of the dismissal order when in fact no such opportunity was demanded by the respondent-plaintiff. As the demand for personal hearing was not made by the respondent-plaintiff the ground did not survive for purposes of setting aside the dismissal order on that count. Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.