- This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by a driver of the Malaria Unit, Government of Punjab Chandigarh. It is alleged in the petition that the proceedings against the petitioner were started for mala fide reasons because he was instrumental in bringing certain officers to book for their dishonest activities. It is not necessary to determine the question of mala fides because on the facts, which are admitted and proved on the record, the petitioner would be entitled to relief, though on a different ground. The petitioner was suspended on the basis of certain complaints against him on the 29th of August, 1959. A charge sheet was handed over to him on the 18th of November, 1960, which is annexure `D'. In spite of his suspension order, he was permitted to attend a refresher course from 31st January, 1960 to 29th February, 1960 and was paid his full salary for that period. On the 29th of November, 1960, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. It is common ground that no enquiry was held and the petitioner was served with show-cause notice on the 8th of February, 1961. The show-cause notice is in the following terms :- "On a careful consideration of the report and in particular the report of the Enquiry Officer, I am of the opinion that a penalty of treating the period of suspension as leave without pay and recovery at the rate of Rs. 0.50 nP. per mile of the unauthorised journey performed by you in Government vehicle should be enforced on you. Before I take that action, I desire to give you an opportunity which you make in that connection will be considered by me before taking the proposed action. Such representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach me not later than 15 days from the receipt of this letter by you". The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on the 10th of February, 1961. Again on 12th of April, 1961, a fresh show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which is annexure R. 2, and is in the following terms :- "The Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into certain charges against you has submitted his report. On a careful consideration of the explanation submitted by you, it has been found that you are guilty of the charges of misusing the Government vehicle, misbehaviour and neglect of duties. I am provisionally of the opinion that your next increment should be stopped for one year, without permanent effect. Before I take this action, I desire to give you an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against you. Any representation which you make in this connection will be considered by me before taking the proposed action. Such representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach me not later than a fortnight from the date of receipt of this notice by you. In case you desire to be heard in person, a written application may please be submitted to the undersigned immediately." It is not clear on the record whether any reply to this notice was submitted by the petitioner. On the 7th of June, 1963, the following order was passed :- "The explanation of Shri Kanshi Ram, driver, in respect of charges levelled against him in this office letter No. 1/4/60/35270 dated 15th November, 1960, has not been found satisfactory and he could not convince me at the time of personal hearing on 25th April, 1961. Therefore, his one annual increment has been stopped without permanent effect for one year and he has been reinstated from the date he reports for duty. He has been found guilty of the charges. The period of his suspension has not been treated as duty and as such is ignored for all purposes. Nothing more will be paid to him." Over and above stoppage of one annual increment, it was provided that the period of suspension was not to be treated as period on duty and was to be ignored for all purposes. It is this order which has been attacked by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 2. Mr. Wasu's short contention is that if the period, during which the petitioner was suspended, is not to be treated as period on duty and is to be ignored for all purposes, it virtually amounts to this that for this period, the petitioner was removed from service and as this punishment has been imposed on him without complying with the mandatory provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the order is bad. 3. Mr. Nehra, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that this order does not amount to an removal. It is an order passed under Rule 8 of the Punjab Appeal and Punishment Rules; and, therefore, the provisions of Article 311 are not attracted. 4. After considering the matter, I am of the view that contention of Mr. Wasu is sound and must prevail. The order virtually amounts to removal from service for the period of suspension and, therefore, it was incumbent that the provisions of Article 311 should have been complied with. It is not disputed that if the order is construed as one amounting to removal from service, then the order will be bad as the requirements of Article 311 have not been complied with. As I have construed the order as such, the of result would be that this petition would be allowed and the impugned order quashed; but there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.