1. Zafrulla Khan, J.:— The Appellant was in 1939 employed as Chief Signaller in the Post Office at Kumbakonam. In October of that year he was suspected of misappropriation of Government funds and was suspended by the Superintendent of Post Offices. Thereafter he was prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and was acquitted on 9th September, 1940. Not being satisfied with this result the Postal Authorities took up the matter departmentally and on 1st March, 1941, the Superintendent of Post Offices framed charges against the Appellant and called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. He was asked to submit his explanation within one week in default of which he was told the case would be decided ex parte. He was also informed that if he wished to be heard in person he would be afforded suitable opportunity for that purpose. On 5th March the Appellant wrote to the Superintendent of Post Offices acknowledging receipt of the notice and requesting the grant of a month's time to prepare and put up his defence. On 7th March, he was informed that he should submit his explanation by 1st April. On 23rd March the Appellant informed the Superintendent that the subject-matter of the charges framed against him had been elaborately dealt with by the Magistrate by whom he was tried on the criminal charge and that as he had been found not guilty he had “at this stage” nothing further to submit. On 24th March he was reminded that the time granted to him for submitting his explanation would expire on 31st March and that he should submit his explanation within time and should note that no extension of time would be granted to him on any account. The Appellant took no further steps in the matter and on 4th April the Superintendent of Post Offices on a consideration of all the material before him recorded the conclusion that all the charges were established and made an order dismissing the Appellant from service. After exhausting his departmental remedies the Appellant instituted a suit against the Governor-General in Council on 15th April, 1943, in which he claimed a declaration that the order of dismissal was void and inoperative and asked for certain further relief. The trial Court held that the Plaintiff had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal within the meaning of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 240 of the Constitution Act and that consequently the order of dismissal was void and inoperative. It gave the Appellant the declaration prayed for but refused any further relief. On appeal by the Respondent the High Court at Madras found on the facts that there was no substance in the Appellant's contention that he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause and dismissed the Appellant's suit but granted a certificate under Sec. 205 (I) of the Constitution Act, on the strength of which the Appellant has come up on appeal to this Court.

2. We have failed to discover any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution Act or any Order in Council made thereunder which may be said to be involved in this case.

3. It was urged before us that the case involved a question relating to the interpretation of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 240 of the Act. To the extent to which any guidance might have been needed for the purposes of this case on the interpretation of that sub-section that guidance was furnished so far as this Court is concerned in its judgment in Secretary of State for India v. I.M. Lall (1). The rest was a simple question of fact. In our judgment no “substantial question of law” as to the interpretation of the Constitution Act was involved in this case, which could have formed the basis of a certificate under Sec. 205(I) of the Act.

4. An attempt was made to persuade us to hold that the Appellant had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal. On the facts set out above, it is quite clear that there is no substance in this contention.

5. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.