The principles of natural justice require that a departmental enquiry be conducted fairly and impartially, and that the employee be given a reasonable opportunity to make his representation against the charges and the proposed action.

( 1 ) ON the petition tiled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the opposite parties 1 to 6 to recall, rescind, withdraw or not to give effect to, the impugned order of opposite party No. 2, dated January 25, 1956. The Rule further required the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued cancelling, setting aside or quashing the impugned order dated January 25, 1965.

( 2 ) BY the said order the petitioner was demote and his increment was stopped for two years.

( 3 ) THE petitioners complaints against the departmental proceedings culminating in the impugned order of demotion and postponement of increment are that the dismissing authority acted throughout mala fide, that rules of natural justice were violated at every step and that he was not given reasonable opportunity to make his representation against the charges or against the punishment proposed.

( 4 ) IT is contended that there is internal evidence of want of good faith in the charge-sheet in the direction given to the enquiring officer ana in other documents.

( 5 ) THE concluding portion of the charge-sheet runs thus: "now, therefore, you are directed to file a written statement in your defence within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order by you with the P. A. to the Director of Agriculture, West Bengal, who is hereby appointed as the Enquiring Officer for this proceeding, showing cause why you will not be removed from the service of the Govt. or otherwise suitably punished. " So, the petitioner was asked to show cause in the charge-sheet itself why he would not be removed from service or otherwise suitably punished. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that this itself shows that the Director of Agriculture was determined either to remove the petitioner from service or to punish him otherwise and that the proceeding was initiated not with a view to ascertaining whether he was really guilty of those charges but with a view to awarding him suitable punishment including removal from service. Hence, it is contended, the enquiry was mala fide even at its inception.

( 6 ) I cannot accept this argument. A charge-sheet is given when a prima facie case is made out and a departmental proceeding is not initiated unless the punishing authority is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the delinquent employee. The words quoted above from the charge-sheet merely suggest that in view of the charges made against the petitioner he is to show cause why he should not be awarded any of the three modes of punishment contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution. If at the enquiry he can satisfy the enquiring officer that the charges are baseless, then there is no question of punishing him. It is absurd to suggest that the enquiry was started with the sole idea of punishing the petitioner and that the enquiry was an idle ceremony. That the sole object of the enquiry was to afford the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself and to prove that he was innocent will be clear from the last sentence in the charge-sheet which is set out below: "you are also directed to state to the above mentioned enquiring officer within the aforesaid time whether you desire to be heard in person in your defence and to produce witnesses, if any". If the only object of the enquiry was to punish the petitioner, he would not have been asked if he desired to be heard in person in his defence and to produce witnesses. Therefore, in my opinion, the enquiry was not tainted with bad faith at its inception.

( 7 ) MY attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a memo, namely, memo No. 4562 (2), dated Calcutta, the 24th March, 1964 forming part of Annexure 'c' to the petition. In the said memo it is stated that the Personal Assistant to the Directo