The rules of natural justice do not prevent the delinquent being interrogated where the evidence in support of the charge is already known to him or where such interrogation would be beneficial to him; it is only 'inquisition' which is prohibited.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who entered Into the service as Khalasi under the Eastern Railway, was, at the material time, working as Clerk, Grade III. By the letter at Ann. B. , dated the 31st May, 1962, the Controller of Stores (Respondent no. 3) asked the petitioner to submit a complete statement of his assets, movable and immovable by the 15th June, 1962. Another letter was issued by respondent no. 3 to the same effect on the 28th June, 1962 (Ann. C), but on the 26th December, 1962, the charge-sheet at Ann. G was Issued against the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for 'disobedience of order' for having failed to submit his statement of assets by the 15th June, 1962, even though he was reminded of his obligation by a second letter.

( 2 ) IN his answer to the charge-sheet (Ann. H), the petitioner stated, inter alia that in course of a proceeding started by the Special Police Establishment, the statement of assets had been called for by them from the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted to them such statement. The petitioner had, by his letter of 4th July, 1962 (Ann. D) requested the Controller to refer to the statement which the petitioner had filed before the Police. Notwithstanding all this, the Controller appointed the Assistant Controller as the Inquiry Officer, on the 21st May, 1963. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on the 28th October, 1964, finding the petitioner guilty (Ann. T.), and, agreeing with that finding, the District Controller (respondent no. 1) issued the second show cause notice at Ann. U, proposing removal from service as the tentative punishment. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was removed from service by the order of the 8th December, 1964 at Ann. W. made by the District Controller (respondent 1 ). The petitioner's appeal to the Controller (respondent 3) filed on the 23rd December, 1964, not having been disposed of in a year, the petitioner moved this Court on the 21st December, 1965 and obtained this Rule, challenging the validity of the charge-sheet, show cause notice and the removal order.

( 3 ) THE petition is opposed by a joint affidavit on behalf of respondents 1-3, by the Assistant Controller, respondent 2.

( 4 ) I. Before going into the points raised by the petitioner, it is to be noted at the outset that the appeal referred to in the petition has since been rejected on the 27th December, 1965, by the Deputy Controller, who is stated in the appellate order as the proper authority. Since this is subsequent to the Rule, the petitioner has not amended the petition to challenge its validity, but has nevertheless urged that his appeal has not been disposed of by the proper authority. The District Controller is, admittedly, the punishing authority of the petitioner. In para 23 of the counter affidavit, it was categorically stated that the appellate authority from orders of the District Controller is the Deputy Controller and not the Controller. Nothing has been said in reply or at the hearing to show that this is not correct. Hence, it cannot be said that appellate order was without jurisdiction. But since the disposal of the appeal took place after the issue of the Rule, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the validity of the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the removal, regardless of the order at Ann. III of the counter-affidavit.

( 5 ) II. Since the charge was one of violation of orders of a competent authority to submit a statement of assets, at the hearing the petitioner first seeks to cut at the root by urging that it was the General Manager and not the Controller who was competent to ask for such a statement and that accordingly, the order on the basis of which the disciplinary proceeding was founded was without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) MR. Chakravarty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relies on Rule 15 (4) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1956, which says --" (4) The Government or any authority empowered by it in this beha