ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Admittedly, the respondent acted as a principal of the appellants Institution. The charge levelled against the respondent was that he had misappropriated certain funds belonging to the Institution. Therefore, on 22-3-1991 a charge-sheet was given to the respondent, after appointing an enquiry officer. The respondent had given the reply on 13-4-1981 to the charge-sheet. At the earliest, he wanted inspection of the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet. Admittedly, neither the documents had been supplied nor an opportunity of inspection had been given to the respondent. Instead, the enquiry officer in his letter dated 18-5-1981 had given the reply stating that since the respondent had already given the reply to the charge-sheet item-wise, he was at liberty to inspect the documents at the time of final arguments on 7-6-1981. From time to time, the enquiry was postponed. Ultimately, the respondent did not participate in the enquiry. Consequently, the enquiry officer had submitted his report on 9-5-1982. Based on that report, on 23-6-1982 the show-cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service was given to the respondent. The respondent had not