( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11. 10. 1999 by which the writ petition was dismissed.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE writ petition was filed by the appellant before the learned single Judge against the dismissal order dated 26. 7. 1985, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was a cashier in the service of the respondent No. 1 and he was charge-sheeted by the charge-sheet dated 3. 2. 1985 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He submitted a reply to the charge-sheet dated 19. 2. 1985 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is alleged by the petitioner in paragraphs 17 to 19, 24 to 27 and 30 and 31 of the writ petition that thereafter, no oral enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner and instead, a show cause notice dated 10/15. 4. 1985, Annexure-6 to the writ petition was issued to him. He sent a reply dated 14. 5. 1985 and thereafter the impugned dismissal order dated 26. 7. 1985, Annexure-1 to the petition was passed.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and hence, this special appeal.

( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the facts of the case, it would be useful to refer to the law as how an enquiry should be held before a major punishment like dismissal is imposed.

( 7 ) IN a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U. P. Co-operative Spinning mills, 1999 (4) AWC 3227 : 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541. in which one of us (Honble M. Katju, J.)was a member, this law has been laid down. The law is as follows : "after a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence vide, A. C. C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) U LLJ 396 (SC ). Ordinarily, if the employee is examined first, it is illegal vide Anand Joshi v. M. S. F. C. , 1991 lic 1666 (Bom) ; S. D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India, (1985) II LLJ 193 and Central railway v. Raghubir Saran, (1983) II LLJ 26. No doubt, in certain exceptional cases, the employee may be asked to lead evidence first, vide Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen, AIR 1968 SC 236, but ordinarily the rule is that first the employer must adduce his evidence. The reason for this principle is that the charge-sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. Where no witnesses were examined and no exhibit or record is made but straightaway the employee was asked to produce his evidence and documents in support of his case it is Illegal vide P. C. Thomas v. Mutholi Co-operative Society Ltd. . 1978 LIC 1428 (Ker)and Meengles Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719. It is also necessary that ordinarily the statement of all the witnesses of the employer should be recorded in presence of the employee unless there are compelling reasons to act otherwise vide kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadhar, AIR 1964 SC 708 and Central Bank of India v. Prakash chand, AIR 1969 SC 983, etc. If the witnesses are examined in the absence of the employee and their recorded statements were also not supplied to him this procedure is illegal vide Tata Oil mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 78 ; India General Navigation and Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Its Employees, (1961) II LLJ 372 (SC) ; Bharat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Jai Singh, (1961) II llj 644 (SC) : Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen. AIR 1963 SC 1914 and Vysya Bank v. N. M. Pat, 1994 LIC 1429 (Kant) etc. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen. AIR 1963 SC 1719, the Supreme Court observed "it is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the ac