Sohan Singh v. Commanding Works Engineer — 1963 DIGILAW 53 (CAL)

UDGMENT 1. The petitioner was a civilian employed in defense service and at the material time was acting as Charge-Electrician, Power House No. 1, at panagarh base. 2. For loss of government property, namely, empty jerry cans and empty barrels of petrol and lubricants, there was an enquiry conducted by a Staff court of Enquiry, in the year 1955, and ultimately the enquiry was taken up by the Special Police Establishment. The petitioner, who was suspected of being involved in the loss, was suspended, on January 7, 1959, by the respondent Works Engineer, pending the enquiry. On April 22, 1960, the petitioner was charged with misconduct under the following heads of charges:- "charge I ross Misconduct that Shri Sohan Singh white functioning as the Charge Electrician of Power House No. 1, under the Garrison Engineer, Panagar division Panagarh, during the year 1954 was entrusted with the containers in which P. O. L. had been supplied to the Power House No. 1, committed Gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties by falsely accounting for 930 empty jerry cans of 4. I. G. and 97 and 50 empty (barrels drums)worth about Rs. 14,464. 12 np. raising a presumption that he had misappropriated them. Charge 2 gross Misconduct that Shri Sohan Singh while functioning as aforesaid during the aforesaid period committed gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties in that, he had fraudulently falsified the official records viz. the store-in-hand Ledger entries dated 21.10.54 of Power house No. 1, the Issue Voucher no. 03/siv/216 dated 21.10.54 with intent to conceal his own misappropriation of empty containers viz. 930 jerry cans and 97 and 50 barrels or to conceal his negligence in the matter of surreptitious removal of the jerry cans and barrels by others. " 3. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner asked for inspection of certain documents, including the proceedings before the Court of Enquiry. Some of the documents, which the petitioner wanted to inspect, were shown to him, on June 6, 1960, but the proceedings before the Court of Enquiry could not be shown to him, on that date, on the ground of non-availability. Some of the documents, which the petitioner wanted to inspect, were shown to him, on June 6, 1960, but the proceedings before the Court of Enquiry could not be shown to him, on that date, on the ground of non-availability. An application by the petitioner for a copy of the proceedings before the Court of enquiry was also rejected by the garrison Engineer with the following note to the petitioner:- "this office has been directed to inform you in reply to your above quoted application that the charges framed against you are not as a result of the Court of Enquiry proceedings. The allegations on which charges have been framed are stated in the charge-sheet itself. The question of supplying you with a copy of the Court of Enquiry proceedings does not therefore arise. " On June 27, 1960, the petitioner showed cause to the charges denying the charges and also denying his responsibility for the loss, if any. 4. At the enquiry held into the charges, in which the petitioner examined himself and also cross-examined witnesses, the petitioner was found guilty. He was thereafter asked, on February 8, 1961, to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The petitioner showed cause against the proposed penalty, on March 8, 1961, and asked for a further personal hearing, which was, however, refused. After considering the cause shown, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed by an order, dated March 23, 1961. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order by which he was found guilty of the charges and also the order dismissing him from service and for a Writ of mandamus on the respondents not to give effect to the order and obtained this Rule. 5. Mr. Benode Behari Halder, learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued three grounds in support of the Rule. He contended, in the first place, that the petitioner should have been personally heard after he had showed cause against the proposed penalty and denial of that opportunity amounted to denial of natural justice to him. 5. Mr. Benode Behari Halder, learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued three grounds in support of the Rule. He contended, in the first place, that the petitioner should have been personally heard after he had showed cause against the proposed penalty and denial of that opportunity amounted to denial of natural justice to him. He contended, in the next place, that disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was conducted in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the constitution and should therefore be quash he contended, lastly, that the notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the penalty was not accompanied by the report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and that made it impossible for the petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty. So far as the last contention is concerned, there is no averment in the petition to the effect that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of enquiry into the charges, at the time when he was asked to show cause against the penalty. There is, however, a ground taken in the petition to the following effect :- "e. For that your petitioner was not supplied any copy of the proceedings and deposition in the oral enquiry, and as such your petitioner was denied natural justice. " 6. AT the hearing of the Rule, it was not disputed by Mr. Amiya Kumar Mookerji, learned Advocate for the respondents, that the petitioner had not been supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. I have, therefore, allowed Mr. Halder to argue the last point of his. I now take up for consideration the arguments of Mr. Halder in. the, order made by him. The point that the petitioner should have been again personally heard after he had shown cause against the proposed penalty is not a point of substance. The petitioner had been given a personal hearing at the stage when the charges leveled against him were being enquired into. After he had been found guilty of the charges, he was also given an opportunity to show cause in writing why the penalty of dismissal should not be imposed upon him. It was not obligatory to allow another personal hearing to the petitioner in the matter of imposition of penalty. No principle of natural justice was violated by refusal to hear the delinquent again. It was not obligatory to allow another personal hearing to the petitioner in the matter of imposition of penalty. No principle of natural justice was violated by refusal to hear the delinquent again. This view finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in (1) F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, 1957 s. C. A. 764, in which Sarkar, J. observed:- "but there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to personal hearing. " I, therefore, overrule the first branch of the argument by Mr. Halder. 7. The second branch of the argument advanced by Mr. Halder is equally fallacious. The petitioner is a civilian employed in defense service. Disciplinary control over an employee, such as the petitioner is, is governed by a set of rules made by the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and known as Civilians in Defense services (Classification, Control, and appeal) Rules, 1952. That is an admitted position. To persons who are governed by these Rules, Articles 309 and 310 of the Constitution apply but not Article 311, because, they are not members of the Civil Service of the union and also 'do not hold a Civil post under the Union. They are members of the defense service, which is a separate service. This is the view which was expressed by Sinha, J. in (2)Subodh Ranjan Ghosh v. Major N. A. O'callaghan, A. I. R. 1956 Cal. 532. This is also the view expressed by kapur, J. in (3) Dass Mai v. Union of india, A. I. R. 1956 Punj. 42 and by k. K. Desai, J. in (4) Tarn Singh ujagar Singh v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1960 Bom. 101. An obiter dictum of an appellate Bench of this Court, consisting of Chakravartti, C. J., and lahiri, J., in (5) Atindra Nath Mukherjee v. G. F. Gillot, A. I. R. 1955 cal. 543 also supports this view. Their lordships observed :- "defense Services are quite distinct from the Civil Services and that any provisions which are expressly and specifically limited to civil services or persons holding civil post in such services cannot be applicable to the defense services or persons holding civil posts in them. 543 also supports this view. Their lordships observed :- "defense Services are quite distinct from the Civil Services and that any provisions which are expressly and specifically limited to civil services or persons holding civil post in such services cannot be applicable to the defense services or persons holding civil posts in them. " The point that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was conducted in violation of the provisions of article 311, therefore, must fail. 8. The next question for my consideration is whether failure on the part of the authority to supply to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report into the charges prejudiced the petitioner to such an extent that he must be deemed to have been denied a fair opportunity to show cause against the penalty proposed. The desirability of supplying a copy of the enquiry report to a delinquent, after he had been found guilty of charges of misconduct and asked to show cause against the penalty proposed, was emphasised by this court in (6) Sisir Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal, A. I. R. 1955 Cal. 183 at p. 188-per Sinha, J., and in (7)A. R. S, Choudhury v. Union of India. 150 C. W. N. 933 at p. 944-per Sinha, j. The same view was reiterated by the Orissa High Court in (8) Bimal Charan Mitra v. State of Orissa, A. I. R. 1957 Orissa 184 at p. 189-per Mohapatra, J., by the Allahabad High Court in (9) Ramesh Chandra v. State of utter Pradesh, A. I. R. 1959 All. 47 at p. 49-per Sahai J. and by the Punjab high Court in (10) State of Punjab v. Onkar Nath Joshi A. I. R. 1960 Punj. 8 at p. 11-per Grover, J. The Patna high Court, however, held a contrary view in the case of (11) Kartick Chandra Dutta v. District Traffic superintendent, A. I. R. 1957 Pat. 676 at p 677, in which Ramaswami, C. J. and kanhaya Singh, J., dealing with a case under Rule 1706 of the Railway Establishment Code, observed that there was no rule making it obligatory upon the punishing authority to furnish the delinquent with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. 676 at p 677, in which Ramaswami, C. J. and kanhaya Singh, J., dealing with a case under Rule 1706 of the Railway Establishment Code, observed that there was no rule making it obligatory upon the punishing authority to furnish the delinquent with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The preponderance of opinion, however, is that it is desirable to furnish a delinquent with a copy of the enquiry report so as to enable him to show cause against the penalty proposed. Mr. Amiya Kumar Mookerji, learned Advocate for the respondents, however, contended that unless the rules governing the disciplinary proceeding provided for supply of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent, it was not obligatory for the authorities to supply any such copy to the delinquent at the time he is asked to show cause against the proposed penalty. Alternatively, he contended that if the disciplinary proceeding was not governed by Article 311 of the Constitution, it was not necessary to supply a copy of the enquiry report at all to the delinquent. In support of his contention, he invited my attention to Rule 5 (9) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. which reads as follows:- "after the enquiry against a member of the service has been completed and after the punishing authority has arrived at any provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in rank, the member of the service charged shall be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiry and be given a further opportunity to show cause why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him: Provided that if the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the findings of the board of inquiry or the inquiry officer, the point or points of such disagreement together with a brief statement of the grounds thereof, shall also be communicated to the member of the service. " (underlined by me for emphasis) 9. He also invited my attention to rule 15 (10), (i) of the Central Civil services (Classification. " (underlined by me for emphasis) 9. He also invited my attention to rule 15 (10), (i) of the Central Civil services (Classification. Control and appeal) Rules, 1957, which reads as fallows :-- " (10) (i) If the Disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified) in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 13should be imposed, it shall- (a) furnish to the Government servant a copy of. the report. of the Inquiry Authority and, where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority; and (b) give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action. " (underlined by me for emphasis. 10. He contended that in respect of disciplinary proceedings, conducted under the aforesaid Rules, it was obligatory to supply to the delinquent a copy of the enquiry report, because of the specific provision to that effect in the Rules. He invited my attention to Rule 1707 of the Railway Establishment Code and to Rule 55a of the Civil services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1930 and contended that those rules did not in terms provide for supply of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent but by reason of liberal interpretation put on Article 311 (2) of the Constitution by different high Courts, which Article governed by the Railway Establishment Code and the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1930, the supply of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent was made usual. He contended with great emphasis that where the rules did not provide and art. 311 of the Constitution did not apply, it was not necessary to supply to the delinquent a copy of the enquiry report before he was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. He argued that none of the decisions which emphasised upon the desirability of supplying the delinquent with a copy of the enquiry report was a case under the Civilians in Defense Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and none where Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted. He argued that none of the decisions which emphasised upon the desirability of supplying the delinquent with a copy of the enquiry report was a case under the Civilians in Defense Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and none where Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted. He, therefore, asked me to ignore those decisions as distinguishable and decide the point on the language of rule 15 of the Civilians in Defense services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1952, which reads as follows :- "15. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction shall be passed on a member of a service (other than an order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a Court Martial) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defense and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held. At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witness to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reason, to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. On completion of the enquiry after the authority empowered to impose the penalty has considered the defense and arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed the person charged shall, if the penalty is dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction, be called upon to show cause within a reasonable time, not ordinarily exceeding a fortnight, against the particular penalty to be imposed. Any representation submitted by the person charged shall be duly taken into consideration before final orders are passed. This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. All or any of the provisions of the rule may, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded, in writing, be waived, where there is a difficulty in observing exactly the requirements of the rule and those requirements can be waived without injustice to the person charged. " Mr. Mookerji attempted to draw support for the argument that there was no absolute standard for reasonable opportunity to defend and ideal rules of natural justice must not be imported to determine whether or not a delinquent had proper or reasonable opportunity to show cause from the observations of the Supreme Court in the (12) New prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. The New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., A. I. E. 1957 S. C. 232 at p. 236, wherein it is stated :- "whether the rules of natural justice have been observed in ;a particular case must itself be judged in the light of the constitution of the statutory body which has to function in accordance with the rules laid down by the Legislature and in that sense the rules themselves must vary. " 11. He further relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in (131)Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, A. I. R. 1958 S. C!. 398 at p. 409, in which it was observed:- "the question whether or not any rules of natural justice had been contravened, should be decided not under any preconceived notion, but in the light of the statutory rules and provision. " 12. 398 at p. 409, in which it was observed:- "the question whether or not any rules of natural justice had been contravened, should be decided not under any preconceived notion, but in the light of the statutory rules and provision. " 12. He also relied on the Special Bench decision of this Court in (14) N. N. Bagchi v. Chief Secretary of Government of West Bengal, 65 C. W. N. 361 at p. 383, in which P. B. Mukharji, j. observed:- "the first principle is to insist that the rules under which these disciplinary tribunals work must Be " strictly complied with. " he lastly relied on a decision of this Court in (15) Kalidas Mondal v. Board of Secondary Education, 66 C.W.N. " 75, in which Sinha, J., observed:- "the procedure to be followed by such a tribunal must be according to the rules where rules are prescribed. But where such rules are absent, the Tribunal cannot ignore a practice which may have grown up. In the case of departmental enquiries, concerning civil servants, where the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution are attracted, a practice has grown up of serving a charge-sheet a second show cause notice, of allowing evidence to be adduced and of granting an oral hearing where such a hearing is asked for. Regard being had to the fact that such cases involved important constitutional rights, such practice must be followed. " Relying on the aforesaid observations, Mr. Mookerji contended that rule 15 of the Civilians in Defense services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1952 did not contemplate supply of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent and Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted to the disciplinary action. As such, if the disciplinary proceeding had otherwise been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Rule, the mere fact that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, before he was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment, must not be over-emphasised and must not be taken to have vitiated the penalty imposed on the petitioner. 13. The argument advanced by Mr. Mookerji is attractive. Article 311 (2)of the Constitution makes it obligatory that the delinquent must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. 13. The argument advanced by Mr. Mookerji is attractive. Article 311 (2)of the Constitution makes it obligatory that the delinquent must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. Rule 55a of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, provides for the delinquent being given an adequate opportunity of making representation against the proposed penalty. But Rule 15 of the civilians in Defense Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952 merely speaks of calling upon the delinquent "to show cause within a reasonable time"; Rule 15 does not specifically encumber the procedure with an express provision for granting to the delinquent a "reasonable" or an "adequate" opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty. Can it be said, in these circumstances, that if the petitioner had been given merely an opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty, however, inadequate that might have been, that must be held to have satisfied the requirements of law and the delinquent must not be heard, if he makes the grievance that the opportunity given to him to show cause against the proposed penalty was only a matter of form and not of substance ? In my opinion, it would not be proper to put such an extreme interpretation on rule 15 of the Civilians in defense Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The position of law in this respect may be summarised as follows- (1) If the Rules provide for supply of a copy of the enquiry report, before the delinquent is called upon to show cause against the proposed penalty, [say, as provided in Rule 5 (9) of the All India services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 or in Rule 15 (1)) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957], the copy must be supplied or else the imposition of penalty becomes bad. (2)Where the rules do not so expressly provide for supply of such a copy, but then the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the constitution apply to the disciplinary action, there is a preponderance of judicial opinion that the copy of the enquiry report must be supplied to the delinquent. I respectfully agree with such decisions. (2)Where the rules do not so expressly provide for supply of such a copy, but then the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the constitution apply to the disciplinary action, there is a preponderance of judicial opinion that the copy of the enquiry report must be supplied to the delinquent. I respectfully agree with such decisions. (3) Where the rules do not specifically provide for supply of copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent, before he is asked to show cause against the proposed penalty, and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution does not apply, it is not obligatory for the disciplinary authority to supply to the delinquent a copy of the enquiry report, before he is asked to show cause against the proposed penalty. (4) But if the delinquent asks for such a copy, on good grounds, in order to enable him to show cause against the proposed penalty, he must be supplied with such a copy. The provision in the Rules, which require that a delinquent must be asked to show cause against the proposed penalty, is meant to enable the delinquent to show cause, with grounds, as to why that particular penalty should not be imposed upon him, even on the findings arrived at against him. There may be cases where the delinquent already otherwise knows (3) of the findings and does not feel embarrassed when called upon to show cause against the proposed penalty. But there may be cases where a delinquent may know nothing of the findings against him and feels it impossible to show any cause against the proposed penalty. In such cases, to say that the delinquent must not be supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, even though prayed for by the delinquent, on the ground that the Rules do not provide for it, is to render the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty merely a formal demand. This is an interpretation of the Rules which must be avoided as unreasonable. 14. The rules of natural justice do not stand wholly abrogated whenever rules are framed to conduct disciplinary actions. It is true that when disciplinary proceedings are conducted under Constitutional or Statutory Rules, the requirements of natural justice must depend upon the rules under which the tribunals act. Within the framework of the rules, however, the principles of natural justice still work. It is true that when disciplinary proceedings are conducted under Constitutional or Statutory Rules, the requirements of natural justice must depend upon the rules under which the tribunals act. Within the framework of the rules, however, the principles of natural justice still work. Unless therefore, the rules prohibit supply of a copy of the enquiry report, for good reasons, there must not be imported into the rules a prohibition to that effect, even if the delinquent feels embarrassment for want of materials on which to show cause against the proposed penalty and asks for such a copy. I. therefore, overrule the extreme contention of Mr. Mookerji that under the provision of rule 15 of the Civilians in Defense services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1952, copy of the enquiry report can never be supplied to the delinquent even in a fit case and even though asked for. In the instant case, petitioner appears never to have specifically asked for a copy of the enquiry report, so as to enable him to show cause against the proposed penalty. What he did was to write a letter to the respondent no. 1, on February 14, 1961, to the following effect:- "with due respect, I beg to state that I am in receipt of your letter under reference above. 1. I am willing to submit my appeal against the above decision within specified date. 2. I request you to allow me an interview. 3. I also request to allow me again to examine the documents in connection with my case, which are at Panagar. I am willing to go to Panagar at my own expenses, I will submit my appeal after seeing the documents as mentioned above. " 15. That prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 1 with the following observation:- "CWE has considered the representations of Shri Sohan Singh numbered as Cal/8/s dated 14th feb. and Cal/9/s dated 22nd Feb. 61, and he finds no reason to grant him an interview as desired by the individual in his representations. All documents in connection with this case were shown to him before he submitted his defense statement and at the time of the oral inquiry. If he had intention to examine any particular document he should have asked for it at the time of oral enquiry but not at thus belated stage. Please inform the individual accordingly. 2. All documents in connection with this case were shown to him before he submitted his defense statement and at the time of the oral inquiry. If he had intention to examine any particular document he should have asked for it at the time of oral enquiry but not at thus belated stage. Please inform the individual accordingly. 2. His dilatory tactics should be resisted and he should be asked to submit his reply to the show cause notice by 10th March 61 positively otherwise an exparte decision will be taken on his case. " 16. Thereafter, on March 8, 1961, the petitioner showed cause in writing as to why he should not be penalized. In my opinion, what the petitioner did in this case was clumsy but, nevertheless, when he asked, on February 14, 1961, to examine the documents in connection with the case, he did not certainly intend to exclude the report of enquiry. The respondent No. 1 gave to the petitioner an extension of time to show cause but did not allow inspection of the enquiry report. That might have inconvenienced the petitioner in showing cause against the proposed penalty. In my opinion, the modest prayer of the petitioner to have access to the papers connected with his case should have been allowed before he was asked to show cause against the proposed penalty. Since a penalty of dismissal affects the life's career of a public servant, he should net be left with a justifiable grievance of unfairness against the punitive proceeding. I have already expressed the view that even under the Civilians in Defense services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, the refusal to supply copy of the enquiry report or to allow inspection thereof may amount to violation of the principles of natural justice in certain cases. In the instant case, the refusal of the prayer of the petitioner to inspect papers connected with the case (which I hold included the enquiry report) amounted to substantial denial of opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty. I, therefore, make the Rule absolute to this extent that I quash the order of penalty imposed on the petitioner. The respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh from stage reached with the report of enquiry. I, therefore, make the Rule absolute to this extent that I quash the order of penalty imposed on the petitioner. The respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh from stage reached with the report of enquiry. They may now issue a fresh notice on the petitioner to show cause why the penalty proposed by them should not be imposed on the petitioner. If the petitioner specifically asks for a copy of enquiry report or wants to inspect the papers connected with his case (but not the report of the Court of Enquiry which was not shown to have anything to do with the charges against the petitioner), the respondents shall supply such a copy or allow such inspection. They shall fix a date for showing cause against the proposed penalty, within which date the petitioner must be supplied with the copy or be allowed inspection of the enquiry report, if he expressly asks for the same. After considering the cause shown, if any, the respondents may impose such penalty on the petitioner, if at all, as he may deserve. Let a Writ of Certiorari issue accordingly. Let a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to do as hereinbefore stated also issue. There will he no order as to costs.