Sinha, J. - (1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta is a body corporate, created by the Calcutta Port Act (B. A. No. 3 of 1890). The petitioner was appointed in 1937, as an Assistant Executive Engineer. To be accurate, he commenced in an officiating post and was confirmed therein sometimes in August 1951, Certain allegations of corruption having been made against the petitioner, Mr. Malkani, the Deputy Chief Engineer, held a preliminary enquiry. On 24-11-1951, the Chairman directed that the charges should be formally enquired into by a Committee composed of Mr. Madan the Chief Engineer, Mr. Iyer the Deputy Chief Accountant and Mr. Bose the Executive Engineer. This Committee held a preliminary enquiry and made a report to the Chairman. On 29-12-1951, the petitioner received a letter from the Chief Engineer (annexure 2 of the petition) which commenced as follows: "Dear Sir, In accordance with letter No. 2883/334 Genl. dated 24-11-1951 from the Secretary, copy enclosed for your information, a Committee composed of Sri N. R. Iyer, Deputy Chief Accountant, Sri H. C. Bose, Executive Engineer, South and the undersigned was set up to enquire into certain allegations made against you. The Com-mittee has held a preliminary enquiry, the findings of which have been duly reported to the Chairman. I am now directed by the Chairman to call upon you to furnish written explanation with regard to the following". Then followed a list of six charges. The petitioner was informed that most of the relevant papers, documents, registers etc., were with the Chief Engineer and could be inspected by the petitioner at any time.
(2.) It must be observed that the preliminary. enquiry by Mr. Malkani, as well as by the Committee set-up by the Chairman, were ex parte.
(3.) The petitioner gave a written explanation to the charges. It is stated in the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the Secretary to the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, that the petir tioner appeared before the Committee, made both verbal and written representations and also produced documents in support of his case. According to the petitioner, however, he was given no opportunity to appear or make any verbal representations before the Committee. He gave a written explanation to the charges, and thereafter the Committee by letters put various questionnaires to him and he answered them in writing. The petitioner, however, did not intimate to the Committee that he wanted to appear personally at any hearing or to call witnesses, at least no such communication is mentioned in the pleadings or the annexures thereto.;