The principles of natural justice require that a person facing disciplinary proceedings be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and to adduce evidence on his behalf.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against order No. 83/57- 16329 R dated 26-9-1957, of the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department and dismissing the petitioner from Government Service.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a permanent non-gazetted Government Servant holding the post of Sub-Registrar under the Government of Orissa. On 2-8-1954 he was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings against him were enquired into by the Member, Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules. 1951. After conducting the enquiry the Tribunal held him guilty of charges of corruption and reported to Government recommending his dismissal from service. Government sent a copy of his report to the petitioner and called upon him to show cause why he may not be dismissed from service. After considering his representation, the Government of Orissa passed order dismissing him from service as stated above.

( 3 ) MR. B. K. Pal challenged the order of dismissal on two grounds: (i) In view of the decision of this Court in ILR 1958 Cut 11 : (AIR 1958 Orissa 96), Dhirendranath Das v. State of Orissa the proceedings of Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1951, in so far as they are applicable to non-gazetted Government servants should be held to be unconstitutional and hence the entire proceeding against the petitioner, including the order of dismissal dated the 26th September 1957, is invalid. (ii) The petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the Departmental proceeding.

( 4 ) IN ILR 1958 Cut 11 : (AIR 1958 Orissa 96), it was held that Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules in their application to non-gazetted Government servants are ultra vires the Constitution and hence invalid. It is unnecessary to repeat the reasons on which that decision was based. The petitioner was admittedly a non-gazetted Government servant and the charges against him dealt with matters described in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. We must, therefore, following the decision, hold that the entire departmental proceedings against the petitioner are invalid and the order of dismissal based on those proceedings is also invalid.

( 5 ) BUT we are informed by the Learned Advocate-General that Government have preferred an, appeal to the Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision of this Court and that the appeal is still pending. As this case also may be taken up on appeal to the Supreme Court, we have considered it necessary to give our findings on the other questions raised in this application.

( 6 ) THE procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal while conducting departmental proceedings against Government servants under the provisions of the said rules is contained in Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7 which are as follows :

"7 (1 ). The Tribunal shall in each case, make such enquiry as may be deemed to be appropriate. (2) In conducting such enquiry the Tribunal shall be guided by rules of equity and natural justice and shall not be bound by formal rules relating to! procedure and evidence. " The Rules do not say that the enquiry against the delinquent officer should be conducted in accordances with the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or that the evidence against that officer should be taken in his presence, or that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses deposing against him, or to adduce evidence on his behalf. But in another Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1957 Cut 177 : ( (S ). AIR 1957 Orissa 70), Baishnab Ch. Das v. State of Orissa, it was held that the words "rules of equity and natural justice"

occurring in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Tribunal Rules quoted above, are wide enough to include