By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner who was a Warehouse Manager Gr. I under respondent No. 1, namely, Assam State Warehousing Corporation, has challenged the following punishments awarded to him in the departmental proceeding in question. The said punishments were demotion to the rank of Warehouse Manager Gr. 11 fixing his pay at the initial stage of the pay-scale of the said post, debarring him from getting future promotion and recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,670.50. The petitioner was charged under five heads. The departmental enquiry was held and the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges and the disci­plinary authority accepted the report and demoted the petitioner to junior most position of Gr. II Warehouse Manager. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 Corporation. The appellate authority not only rejected the appeal but issued a notice on the petitioner to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced vide letter dated 18th July, 1983 at Annexure-X to the petition. There after by order dated 14.8.84 vide Annexure-XII imposed the enhanced punishment. The main charge against the petitioner is that between 6.9.77. and 10.9.77 he as a Warehouse Manager of the Corporation at Tezpur received rice in good condition from the Food Corporation of India, Tezpur and issued proper receipt but in respect of 898 bags of rice he did not issue any receipt though he kept the said bags of rice unaccounted in the warehouse in contravention of the rules and instructions. Subsequently after rebaging of said unaccounted bags of rice, 197 quintals 18 K. Gs and 500 grams, being the contents of 221 bags valued at Rs. 26,670.50 were found short.

2. The first contention of Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the enquiry was vitiated being violative of the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not given chance to examine records and the enquiry officer did not allow the petiti­oner to examine two witnesses. In support, Mr. Phukan has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Dr. Tarini Chandra Deka vs. The Gauhati University and Ors., ILR 1981 Gauhati 72. The above decision was rendered by one of us (Hansaria J) and this Court found that there was violation of principle of natural justice in the departmental enquiry, inasmuch as, the delinquent lecturer was denied the opportunity of referring to important docu­ments favourable to him and defence witnesses as requested were not examined. There cannot be any dispute if in the departmental proceeding the delinquent officer was not given adequate opportunity to peruse the documents or his witnesses were not examined there is violation of principle of natural justice.

3. Coming to the case in hand, we find from record that petiti­oner requested the enquiry officer to examine three witnesses in support of his case, viz., (1) Upen Barman, Salesman-cum-Peon, (2) Jita Mahtoo, Night-Watchman and (3) Khageswar Das, L. D. Assistant. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents has rightly drawn our attention that the enquiry officer examined @ Jita Mahtoo a defence witness but examination of Upen Barman and Khageswar Das was not necessary as they had been examined as witnesses for the Corporation. We have perused the record and we find that Khageswar Das was examined as witness No. 3 and Upen Barman was examined as witness No. 4. Situated thus, we are of the opinion, re-examination of these two witnesses was not necessary and the enquiry officer rightly refused to examine these two witnesses.

4. Mr. Phukan has submitted that the prayer for adjournment by the petitioner on health ground was rejected without recording any reason and as a result some witnesses could not be cross-examined. We find from record and also from the report of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross