A delinquent officer is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in a departmental proceeding, including the right to be provided with copies of the preliminary investigation report and the detailed evidence, and the right to examine his defence witnesses.

The judgment of the Court was as follows :––

In this Rule, a charge-sheet dated 30th October, 1975, being Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, an Investigation Report dated 3rd January 1978, being Annexure 'N' to the writ petition and the second Show-cause Notice issued to the petitioner on 8th March, 1978, being Annexure 'P' to the writ petition, are under challenge.

2. It appears that the petitioner joined the Engineering side of the Telegraphic Department in December 1952 as Telegraphic Supervisor and, thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Bhubaneswar and joined Calcutta Telephones some time in March, 1976 and had been working there as Sub-divisional Officer in 43/44 Exchange. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated the 30th October, 1975 in connection with an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charge-sheet and imputation of charges accompanying the charge-sheet were issued by one Sri Dubey who was the Deputy Inspector General (Vigilance). The petitioner asked for various documents mentioned in the petitioner's letter. But all such documents were not made available to the petitioner and the petitioner was informed that some of the documents were relevant.

3. It may be noted here that with regard to the other documents, it was not even stated that the said documents were not relevant. It also appears that the synopsis of the statements made by several persons examined during the investigation prior to the issue of the charge-sheet to the petitioner were made over to the petitioner but the detailed evidence were not given to the petitioner and, in the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that the detailed evidences were shown to the petitioner. It also appears that the preliminary investigation report was not made available to the petitioner and the witnesses intended to be examined by the petitioner could not be examined by the petitioner as the said persons could not and/or did not appear on the date fixed for their examination.

4. In the instant Rule, the petitioner contends that the charge-sheet discloses a closed mind and bias of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner and, on that score, the charge-sheet must be quashed. It is also contended by the petitioner that under the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the charge-sheet and the second show-cause notice can be issued only by the punishing authority. But, admittedly, in the instant case, such charge-sheet and the show-cause notice have been signed by the Deputy Inspector General (Vigilance) who is, admittedly, not the punishing authority so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is contended that on that score also, the charge-sheet and the second show-cause notice issued to the petitioner should be quashed. The petitioner also contends that the investigation report was the basis for issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner and the said document was extremely relevant and vital for enabling the petitioner to defend himself effectively in the departmental proceeding. But, despite demand for the said document, the said report was not made available to the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the departmental proceeding is vitiated for not following the procedure as laid down in the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules and for not giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in the said departmental proceeding.

5. Mr. Banerjee the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this Rule on the ground that the writ application is premature and the petitioner should not be permitted to challenge the departmental proceeding up to the stage of issuing the show-cause notice in this Rule, because the petitioner has not yet given his answer to the second show-cause notice and the concerned authority h