The principles of natural justice require the provision of relevant documents to the delinquent in disciplinary proceedings to ensure effective cross-examination of witnesses and a fair enquiry.

1. THE petitioner, in this Rule has prayed for quashing of the Disciplinary proceeding, the suspension order, the charge-sheet, the report of the Enquiry Officer and, the punishment show cause notice.

2. THE instant writ application, has arisen under the facts and circumstances stated hereunder.

The petitioner, at the relevant time, had been working as a clerk in the Office of the Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah. By a memo, dated 6th march, 1976, of the Security Officer, sealdah, all documents, relating to recruitment/employment, dealt with by the petitioner, were directed to be taken over by the chief clerk, Shri R. N. Mukherjee, when the petitioner would join duty on the 8th of March, 1976. The petitioner was also served with an order of suspension issued by the Assistant Security Officer, Sealdah, in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 27th April, 1976, under the signature of the Assistant Security Officer, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner issued medical memos Nos. 274926 and 274927 dated 10th April, 1975, in favour of Ramprobesh Roy and Subhnarayan Ojha respectively, forging the signature of the chief clerk, Shri R. N. Mukherjee, and wrongfully using the rubber stamp of A.S.O./SDAH to enable the said persons to obtain certificates of fitness and thus committed offences of forgery, conspiracy and misuse of his official position for his personal gains. Along with the charge-sheet a list of 6 documents and another list of 5 witnesses were enclosed, interims of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants Discipline and appeal Rules.

3. THE petitioner by his letters dated 15. 5. 76 and 1. 7. 76 asked for copies of about 10 documents and statements of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and report of the Vigilance Inspector. Of the said documents, copies of some were given and inspection of some others were allowed but a number of such documents, asked for, had not been supplied. On a further representation by tie petitioner dated 31st July, 1976, the assistant Security Officer by ins letter dated 16th August, 1976 directed him to obtain copies of the records prepared by himself. It is alleged, in paragraph 20 of the writ application, that Shri 3. K. Dey of the vigilance Department, who investigated into the facts, refused to give inspection of certain documents.

4. THE petitioner's first grievance is that grounds, on which inspection was refused, were neither bonafide nor lawful. From the averments made in the said paragraph, it appears that the statements of Subhnarayan Ojha and Ramprobesh Roy were refused on the ground that those were not mentioned in the list of documents. It may be mentioned, at this stage, that the said two persons were named as witnesses in the charge-sheet. It also appears that the investigation report of Sri S. K. Dey. Vigilance inspector was refused on the ground that he was mentioned as a witness only and his statement was not included in the list of documents.

The petitioner by another representation dated 31st July, 1978 reiterated that copies of items 3, 7, 8 and 9 only were given to him and the rest of the items as mentioned in his letters dated 15th of May, 1976 and 1st July, 1976 were not given to him, with the result, that he was not able to submit his reply to the sheet. As stated above, some of the relevant documents were not permitted to be inspected by the petitioner by the Vigilance Inspector Shri S.K. Dey and even without such inspection, the petitioner had to file his reply to the charge-sheet by his letter dated 27th august, 1976, denying all the allegations, brought against him and making a prayer for access to the report of the Government hand-writing expert. Thereafter an enquiry was started and during its pendency, the Enquiry Officer was changed.

5. THE second grievance of the petitioned is that the report of the hand-writing expert, inspite of a direction by Shri b. C. Roy, the 1st Enquiry Officer, was neve