The principles of natural justice require that a person facing disciplinary proceedings be given a fair and impartial hearing, including the opportunity to inspect relevant documents and to cross-examine witnesses.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. dated December 3, 1970 whereby the rule obtained by the petitioner on his application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution was made absolute. The petitioner according to his case has been a Lower Division Clerk in the Income Tax Office District I (I) as a permanent employee without any blemish in his service career. By an order dated May 21, 1966, passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range XIII, Calcutta, the appellant No. 1 before us, the petitioner respondent was placed under suspension as a disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated and he was further directed not to leave the head quarters without obtaining previous permission of the appellant. The petitioner, thereafter was served with a memorandum dated July 25, 1966, issued by the said appellant proposing to hold an inquiry against him under RULE. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (herein after referred to as the Appeal Rules) on several articles of charge and along with the same, alleged imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge were enclosed. The first charge related to the action of the petitioner in leading a number of staff on May 20, 1966, at about 12 noon tot the office room of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range IV Shri Seth and using derogatory, abusive and filthy language towards him, while continuously thumping the table and obstructing him in discharge of his duties, thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Rules ). The second article of charge related to the action of the petitioner in respect of the incident in collecting a number of members of the staff and holding demonstration within and outside the room of the said Inspecting Assistant Commissioner thereby violating Rules 3 (1) (iii) and rule 7 (1) of the Conduct Rules. The third charge related to the action of the petitioner in the same incident in exhibiting violent and unruly conduct to the said officer, breaking the table glass to pieces by the paper weight while thumping the table thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Conduct-Rules. The fourth charge related to the petitioners gross negligence of duties in not attending office regularly and at times leaving office without permission after signing attendance register in dislocation of office work thereby making himself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 3 (ii) of the Conduct Rules. Charge V related to the petitioner's leaving the Head quarters Calcutta without obtaining previous permission of his superior authority thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the said Rules. The last charge related to the obstruction caused by the petitioner to the caretaker of the Income Tax Building of Chowringhee Square on June 16, 1966 while he went with his staff to remove some posters displayed there. Along with the memorandum were annexed a list of documents and witnesses for the purpose of establishing the charges. The petitioner was further directed to file his written statement of defence within a stipulated period.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed his written statement of defence on August 14, 1966. The appellant No. 1 appointed M. L. C. D'souza, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as the Enquiring Officer who by order dated October 11, 1966 fixed the case to November 3, 1966. The petitioner was directed inspect the specified documents within 8 days and to supply list of his witnesses as also to give notice within 10 days for discovery and production of any documents lying in custody of Government. The petitioner completed inspection of the documents on November 1, 1966. By this letter of November 2, 1966 he gave a list of November 2, 1966 he gave a list of witnesses to be examined and as also a list of documen