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 submitted his explanation. However, he requested the Committee to convene a meeting in which he desired to submit his explanation. But there being no provision to give hearing to an employee in the meeting of the Committee, the same was not given to the respondent. The appropriate resolution has been passed by the appellant on 22-9-1982 to dismiss the respondent from service, subject to its approval by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor in his proceedings dated 27-1-1983 and the Chancellor in his proceedings dated 12-8-1983 had given their approval under the relevant provisions of the U.P. Universities Act. Thereafter the appellant dismissed the respondent from service.

3. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in WP No. 11542 of 1983 in the High Court at Allahabad. Pending its disposal the respondent retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 12-12-1992. It would appear that the respondent was reappointed till the end of academic year as per rules and on the expiry of the academic year he stood superannuated according to rules w.e.f. 30-6-1993. The judgment was rendered on 5-2-1993 setting aside the orders of dismissal and leaving open the holding of fresh enquiry, if necessary. This appeal by special leave has been filed on 3-5-1993.

4. It is contended by Shri Raju Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court was not right in its conclusion that the documents required by the respondent were not supplied nor is there any denial of opportunity to the respondent to examine his own witnesses. The respondent himself adopted dilatory tactics and he did not cooperate in the conduct of the enquiry. He did not ask the enquiry officer for an opportunity to examine the witness on his behalf. The question of hearing him by the Committee did not arise inasmuch as there is no such provision in the bye-laws of the society or the rules. Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice, on the facts of this case. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also.

5. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that at the earliest the respondent sought for the inspection of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet and relied on by the appellant. It is settled law that after the charge-sheet with necessary particulars, the specific averments in respect of the charge shall be made. If the department or the management seeks to rely on any documents in proof of the charge, the principles of natural justice require that such copies of those documents need to be supplied to the delinquent. If the documents are voluminous and cannot be supplied to the delinquent, an opportunity has got to be given to him for inspection of the documents. It would be open to the delinquent to ob