A departmental enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including providing the delinquent employee with a specific charge-sheet, allowing them to inspect relevant documents, producing witnesses to establish the charges, and giving them the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and defend themselves.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: On the 26th June, 1959 the petitioner was employed as a clerk in the General Branch of the Eastern Railway at Lillooah, in the office of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, who was his appointing authority. It appears that shortly before that date, a report was received from the vigilance officer and there was a "fact finding enquiry". The allegation was shortly as follows: Some persons had secured blank pass application forms for the issue of Railway Passes. These blank pass applications were filled up with a bogus name and a false rubber stamp was put thereon, together with a forged signature of a clerk in the D. C. O. S. 's office, and they were passed on to the petitioner, who was a clerk in the Pass section. On the strength of this, passes were issued, which were fraudulently utilised. It appears that there was a very exhaustive enquiry at which witnesses were examined. On 26-6-58 the Personal Assistant to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer issued a charge-sheet upon the petitioner and several other persons. The charges were as follows:"1. For fraudulent issue of 367 Nos. of foreign line passes (two II class and three hundred and sixty-five III class) for 1,085 1/2 adults during the years 1956 and 1957 on faked pass applications alleged to have been forwarded from office of the District Controller of Stores Eastern Railway, Lillooah, involving a cost of Rs. 17,415. 18 np. thereof which were neither received nor date stamped by the Receiving Clerk of Pass Section. 2. For fraudulent disposal of all the above passes by entering them in a separate peon-book instead of sending them in the particular peon-book in which all passes issued on genuine pass applications are sent to office of the District Controller of Stores, Lillooah, and delivering to unauthorised persons against some fictitious acknowledgment other than those employed in the Pass Section of D. C. O. S's office with view for illicit gain. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner gave his explanation and stated that the charge-sheet was couched in vague generalisations although the disciplinary action rules clearly prescribe that the charge should be free from ambiguities and should be clear. The petitioner, therefore, asked that the charges should be made clear and all the relevant records and cognate documents made available for inspection. On the 29th August, 1958 the defence counsel for the petitioner complained before the enquiring committee which had been constituted to make the enquiry, that although the enquiry had started for a week, the prosecution had not produced any witnesses or documentary evidence to establish the charges. On the other hand, the onus was being shifted to the petitioner. On the 21st August, 1958 the defence counsel for the petitioner cited in writing the names of 11 witnesses. The petitioner also asked for the production of papers and documents of the year 1955. He was told that the documents of 1955 were not relevant and in any event they were destroyed. He asked for inspection of the order of destruction, but it was not given to him. The departmental enquiry appears to have been held from 16-8-58 to 10-9-58 and some of the petitioner's witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the enquiring committee held that the petitioner was responsible for fraudulent issue ot 365 foreign line passes during the years 1956 and 1957 on faked pass applications, alleged to have been forwarded from the office of the District Controller of Stores, Lillooah. It was stated in the finding that the members of the enquiring committee had "carefully considered all the evidence". The order was supported by "remarks and reasons for the finding". On the 115-1-1959 a second show cause notice was given. The petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner wanted to see the records of the examination and cross-examination of different witnesses in connection with the procee