A departmental enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the relevant statutory rules. The delinquent must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to have access to the evidence against him.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a clerk attached to the Money Order Department, General Post Office, Calcutta. On or about 26-2-1949, a complaint was received from one Mr. Menon of 8, Dalhousie Square, Calcutta, alleging that he had remitted a sum of Rs. 300/- by money order receipt No. 1084 dated 11-2-1949 from the General Post Office, Calcutta, to the address of C. Raju, C/o Raghaban Tailor, Chittur, Cochin State, but no such money order was remitted. Four more complaints of non-payment on the same day were received aggregating to more than Rs. 1000/ -. Upon this complaint an enquiry was made and it was found that a whole page of receipts was missing, a page which presumably contained entries in respect of these sums. The Postal Department of course had to meet the claims of the remitters. Mr. Menon wrote to say that he would be able to point out the counter and identify the official to whom the money was paid and it appears that there was an identification held and Mr. Menon pointed out the counter as also the petitioner as being the person to whom he had handed over the money. The other persons whose monies had gone astray also attempted to identify and they certainly identified the counter, but it is not clear whether they or any of them identified the petitioner. The counter at which the petitioner was said to have been sitting was the third counter and one Tulsi Charan Chatterjee was in the second counter. According to the petitioner the third counter was what is called a "batch Counter" and only cheques were received there. He says that his duty was merely to assist Tulsi Charan Chatterjee who was in the second counter and he says that the missing money orders could not have been delivered at the third counter where only cheques were accepted. As against this it is said that although the third counter was a batch counter, in times of rush all the counters accept cash payments. The Postal authorities informed the local police and the petitioner was arrested on 6-5-1949 on charges under Section 409, Penal Code, and Section 52, Post Office Act. On 7-5-1949, the petitioner was suspended from office. The police, however, did not find sufficient evidence against the petitioner and on 31-8-1949 the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta discharged the accused. Then on 4-11-1949 there was an order of reinstatement. It is obvious that the word 'reinstatement' has been Improperly used because the petitioner had never been dismissed. The proper order would have been to revoke the order of suspension. Be that as it may, what actually happened was that he rejoined service and was transferred to the Delivery Department. On or about 6-3-1950, a charge-sheet was delivered to the petitioner charging him with unauthorised possession and use of money order receipts Nos. 1081-1085 and not bringing into account the money collected thereon. He was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. He was also called upon to state whether he wanted to be heard in person. According to the petitioner, he wanted to be heard in person. Although it is said on behalf of the respondents that no such request was received, it was admitted that the authorities granted him the facility of being heard in person and that he was actually present at the time of the enquiry. The petitioner duly showed cause against the charges and there was the hearing and it appears that the charges were found against the petitioner. This will appear from the annexure 'i' to the petition, in which the Presidency Post Master, Calcutta, the enquiring officer, records his findings and calls upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted. From this annexure it will also be found that the enquiring officer relied on a statement of the Counter Clerk Sri Tulsi Charan Chatterjee who is said to have been sitting on the second counter on the relevant date. This is what he said:"this office records and the s