Sinha, J. - (1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows:
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Inspector Assessor on 1-7-1951 by the Director of Procurement and Supply. On 25-8-1952 he was served with a charge-sheet. In that charge-sheet, there were six charges, one of which was that he had refused to make over charge of the Procurement godown to another officer, although he was tinder orders of transfer. It was said that he had refused to make over charge on the plea that the relevant order of the authorities concerned had not, been received by him, or shown to him. The next charge was that he left station without prior permission of the higher authorities. There were other charges, for example, that he had not properly exerted himself in the discharge of his duties that he left for Calcutta without taking leave end that he was in the habit of leaving station frequently without prior permission He was directed to explain why he should not be dismissed, discharged or removed from service or otherwise suitably punished. The charge-sheet was signed by the Regional Controller of Procurement and Supply, Region III, Calcutta, and the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation to the Deputy A. R. C. P. Murshidabad. He was also asked to intimate to the said officer as to whether he would like to be heard in person. The petitioner gave his explanation and asked that he should have an opportunity of being heard in person. Thereafter, a rather extraordinary course was adopted by the authorities concerned. The Deputy A. R. C. P., Murshidabad held an enquiry ex parte, and gave a report on 17-10-1952 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and recommending that he should not be retained in Government service. The report was then forwarded to the R. C. P. It is said that the R. C. P. thereupon "fount the delinquent guilty of all the charges". It is not quite clear whether he gave notice to the delinquent before he arrived at this decision. He however appears to have directed the A. R. C. P. to intimate to the delinquent that he should appear before the R. C. P., but this notice was never served upon the delinquent. The report of the A. R. C. P., with the note? of the R. C. P., was then forwarded to the D. P. S. On 13-12-1952 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Director (Personnel) stating that an enquiry had been held against the petitioner and that it had been completed. A copy of the report of enquiry was enclosed! with the notice, together with the intimation that the Director of Procurement and Supply had provisionally decided that a penalty of removal from, service be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to show cause against the imposition of the proposed penalty, within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner gave an explanation and it appears that the D. P. S., directed the Deputy A. R. C. P., Murshidabad, to examine certain persons. The Deputy A. R. C. P., examined a peon and then gave a further report. In order to appreciate this action on the part of the D. P. S., it is necessary to consider the nature of the report, which was given by the Deputy A. R. C. P., on 17-10-1952. In this report, which was the result of art enquiry held behind the back of the petitioner, reference is made to the fact that the C. I. found three letters lying unattended to at Khoera Procurement godown, which he had visited on 21-7-52 and that one of these letters contained the transfer order, in the absence of which the petitioner had refused to make over charge. The petitioner had said in his explanation that he left station with the permission of the C. I., given verbally. In the report it was said that the C. I., had not supported this version. No formal evidence of the C. I., was ever taken, nor was the petitioner allowed to cross-examine him. The most striking fact however is contained in the concluding portion of the report, which runs as follows: "Regarding para 6. His explanation is not to the point. That he is in the habit of leaving station frequently without permission is evident from the above two specific cases. Apart from the above, the statement of the peon attached to Khoria P. G. at that time is enclosed herewith in original, which will speak for itself. On enquiry the statement made by the P. G. peon was found to be correct. But in view of the present proceeding no action was taken separately for leaving station by the I/A on the occasion referred to in the statement. In my opinion, such indisciplined, irresponsible, careless and lazy officer should not be retained in Government service."
(3.) It is admitted that the peon was not called to give evidence at the enquiry, nor did the petitioner have any opportunity of cross-examining him. The D. P. S., himself must have found some difficulty in accepting the report, for he gave a direction as follows: "The evidence of this peon is most material. The peon should be examined in his presence and the officer allowed to cross-examine him. If possible, some of the daily passengers through whom he used to carry on communication should be examined. Evidence on this point should be taken to substantiate charge No. 6. R. C. P. III will submit further report by the end of this month.";