In a domestic enquiry, the failure to put statements to witnesses and allowing them to use the statements for answering questions during cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the enquiry.

Ismail, J.

This is an appeal by the respondents in W.P. No. 4153 of 1974 against the judgment and order of our learned brother Ramanujam, J., dated 22nd July, 1976, allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of the first and second appellants herein. The facts are within a very short compass. The respondent herein was employed as Flight Steward in the Madras Branch of the Indian Airlines. On 24-7-1973, the following three charges were framed against him in respect of his alleged conduct in Operations Officers and departure lounge on 19-7-1973 :

(i) even though not on duty, he was found in the above offices appearing to be under the influence of liquor :

(ii) he behaved in a rude, indecent and abusive manner towards Capt. N. M. Pereira, Officiating Operations Manager, by talking to him in an aggressive and threatening manner; and

(iii) he created a scene in the departure lounge, where passengers were seated, by shouting and using, abusive and threatening language towards Capt. Pereira.

According to the management, the conduct which constituted the subject-matter of the said three charges, was in violation of the Standing Orders (Regulation) 16(11), 16(13) and 16(18), a mistake for 16(8). By the said charge memo, the respondent was asked to give his explanation to the said three charges. It is not necessary to refer to the subsequent correspondence that passed between the respondent and the management in view of the narrow compass within which this appeal lies. It is enough to point out that finally an enquiry was conducted by one Thiru R. R. Singh into the charges. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the effect that all the three charges had been proved. On the basis of the said findings, a notice dated 14-10-73 was issued to the respondent herein asking him to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The respondent submitted his representations to the show cause notice on 5-1-74. However, by an order dated 7-2-1974 the conclusion of the enquiry officer was con firmed and the second appellant removed the respondent from service. Against the said order of removal the respondent appealed to the Assistant Managing Director, Indian Airlines, New Delhi, who by an order dated 22-4-74 dismissed the appeal holding that the action taken by the second appellant was justified. The respondent thereafter filed W.P. No. 4153 of 1974 on the file of this Court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of removal passed against him.

2. We shall refer to some of the main points of attack against the orders made by the respondent a little alter. One of the points taken by the appellants herein was a preliminary one in the sense that no petition for the issue of a certiorari will lie against the orders of appellants 1 and 2. The learned Judge overruled that objection and held that the writ petition was maintainable. Before us in this appeal that objection was not urged and, therefore, we are not concerned with that preliminary objection and we are concerned only with the case on merits.

3. As far as the merits are concerned, the respondent herein the writ petition impugned the validity of the order passed by the appellants herein on several grounds. The very first ground put forward as Ground No. 1 in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is :

"Admittedly a preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. In the regular enquiry which was conducted on 4-10-1973 and on the subsequent dates, on the subsequent dates, no witness produced by the department was examined-in-chief by the department. All the 'witnesses produced by the department were having their prior statements recorded in the preliminary. The petitioner was straightaway asked to cross-examine the witnesses with relation to the statements given by these witnesses in the preliminary enquiry. The petitioner orally objected, but his objection was over-ruled by the enq