A departmental enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, which include the right to cross-examine witnesses and to adduce all relevant evidence.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 4 June 1960, by which the Commissioner, Jabal-pur Division (respondent 1) found the petitioner, clerk in the District Office, Jabalpur guilty of (i) misappropriating a sum of Rs. 33/- and (ii) fraudulently drawing that sum again for payment of a bilt and dismissed him from service.

( 2 ) ON 10 February 1959, a charge-sheet together with the statement of allegations and a forwarding memorandum directing the holding of a departmental enquiry, all signed by the Collector, Jabalpur (respondent 2), were served on the petitioner and he was directed to submit his reply to the two charges within seven days to the enquiring officer, R. C. Shrivastava. On 16 February 1959, the petitioner applied for copies of certain documents (Annexure O. The enquiring officer however directed, perhaps in order to save time, that the petitioner should be allowed to inspect the documents. It would appear that even then he was not allowed to inspect all but one of those documents and, On 12 March 1959, he complained in writing to the enquiring officer (Annexure D ). Thereafter the enquiry was completed and a report was submitted. On 1 June 1959, the Collector, agreeing with the enquiring officer, provisionally came to the conclusion that the two charges were established against the petitioner and issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. On receiving the petitioner's reply dated 20 June 1959, the Collector passed the following order:

"i have perused the record of the case very carefully and have also heard Shri Soni. It will fee seen that Shri Soni had made some statement before me. This statement was of great importance in the decision of this case and the enquiring officer should have examined me. The case is therefore remanded for further enquiry. The enquiring officer will also look into the application of Shri Soni about making available to him certain documents for defending his case. His request on each point should carefully be considered and orders passed thereon. "

( 3 ) ON remand, the enquiry was taken up by B. S. Arora, who directed on 30 september 1959 that the documents, which had not been shown to the petitioner, be made available to him for inspection. The petitioner protested saying that he needed the documents for submitting his reply to the charges and for cross-examining witnesses (Annexure D. The Collector was then examined and a fresh report exoneiating the petitioner of the two charges but finding him guilty of gross negligence in the discharge of his duties was submitted. Since the Collector had appeared as a witness in the enquiry, the report was sent to the Commissioner but not before the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, in his forwarding note dated 30 january 1960, considered the evidence led against the petitioner and recorded his opinion that the two charges were clearly proved and that, in view of the charges and the reprehensible conduct of the petitioner, he did not deserve to be continued in service.

( 4 ) HAVING recorded his provisional conclusion that the two charges were proved, the Commissioner issued the usual notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed. In his reply dated 30 March 1960, the petitioner pointedly urged that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself inter alia on the following grounds:

(i) Copies of covering note sheets of vouchers Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were not supplied. (ii) Copies of documents mentioned in the application dated 12 March 1959 were not supplied. Even inspection of those documents was not given before completion of the enquiry. (iii) The enquiry was remanded to strengthen the case against the petitioner by the evidence of the Collector. Even so, no opportunity was afforded to rebut the evidence which he gave against the petitioner. The Commissioner, without considering any of these points, f