Denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in a departmental enquiry violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the enquiry proceeding.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 17. 01. 2002 by which o. A. No. 1438 of 1997 filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are that an order of suspension was issued against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Bench, in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Thereafter, on 20th June, 1996, the petitioner was directed to attend the office regularly and the suspension order was virtually withdrawn. The petitioner was thereafter served with a chargesheet alleging misconduct and the petitioner was directed to state in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of the chargesheet whether the petitioner would accept the charges in full or in part or whether the petitioner would like to face an enquiry in respect of those charges. After time was extended to the petitioner to give reply to the charges, the petitioner gave a reply denying the charges and in the said reply the petitioner wanted supply of some documents which were relied on in the chargesheet. The petitioner also made a prayer for engaging an Advocate for defending his case in the enquiry proceeding. However, the petitioner's prayer for engaging an Advocate was rejected by the enquiry officer and the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry proceeding on and from 10th of October, 1996.

( 3 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted without giving the petitioner proper opportunities of defence. In support of the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner urged that his prayer for documents made on 10. 10. 1996 was turned down by the enquiring authority without any reason. In the said prayer for documents, the petitioner wanted the enquiry officer to furnish him with various documents which were mentioned in the chargesheet. But the enquiry officer did not disclose any reason why the petitioner's prayer for documents was denied to him by the order dated 01. 11. 1996. Apart from that, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the chargesheet in this case is admittedly based on the alleged complaint of one Smt. Nilanjana Guha. But nilanjana was not examined in the presence of the petitioner nor was the petitioner given any chance to cross-examine Nilanjana. This seems to be a serious complaint made by the petitioner. The importance of Nilanjana as a witness in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is clear if we look into the nature of charges against the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE articles of charges against the petitioner are set out below : (1 ). You developed intimate relationship with one Smt. Nilanjana Guha while she was the wife of Sri Sumit Guha in the year 1987. After her divorce in the year 1989 you along with Nilanjana lived at Railway quarter no. 12/e, Ghoshapur Railway Colony, Behala till 1994 and then shifted to flat No. 3/33 at HUDCO Estate, Ultadanga which was the official accommodation allotted to you. (2 ). As a member of the security personnel group of the Chief Minister of west Bengal you went to Delhi and you stayed at Guest House (Banga bhavan) along with Nilanjana on 23. 12. 1995 and other days. (3 ). Again as a member of security team of the H. E. the Governor of the West bengal you visited Hyderabad in the month of April, 1995 between 19th april and 25th April you stayed together with Nilanjana. (4 ). On 1. 6. 1996 you reported sick at quarters and on 2. 6. 1996 you visited office and submitted a prayer for six days leave. You left Headquarters before the leave was granted.

( 5 ) AS this complaint was made by the petitioner's Counsel that Nilanjana was examined without any information to the petitioner, this Court wanted to know from the learned Counsel for the respondents whether such complaint was correct or not. The learned Counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that he cannot improve upon the records and from the records, it appears t