K. S. Hegde C. J. , S. N. Andley J. ( 1 ) THE Union of India has appealed against the judgment dated 31/08/1964, delivered by Sharma J. o. i the Punjab High Court whereby thelearned Judge allowed the writ petition which had been filed by therespondent impinging the order dated 10/09/1982, of his dismissal from service and praying for a declaration that he continued tobe in service and was entitled to the emoluments of his office. The orderculminating in the dismissal of respondent was passed after a Board ofinquiry had found the respondent guilty of some of the charges whichwere levelled against him. ( 2 ) THE respondent was employed in the Indian Railways as Seniorrailway Inspector attached to the office of the Indian Store Departmentat London with effect from 6/08/1954. His duties included theinspection of rolling stock and other materials fur which orders wereplaced by the Government of India on various firms in the Unitedkingdom and the Continent. Towards the end of 195s, the respondentwas posted to the Esson Area of West Germany as Senior Railway Inspector and remained there till April, 1958. He hadsucceeded S. N. Hussain as Senior Railway Inspector in theindian Railways attached to the Indian Store Department inlondon. The fir m of Messrs Leo Gottwald and Company, Dusseldorf,entered into a contract to supply railway breakdown cranes to the Government of India. It appears that the said firm which was a familyconcern of Dr. Hons Dieter Gottwald, alleged to be a lawyer by profession, committed defaults in delivering the contract goods within timeand the Gov rment cf India became entitled to claim 45,138-7. 8sd asliquidated damages on account of delayed supplies. Dr. Gottwald madestatements before L. T. Madnani, (Railway Adviser), J. D. Shukia (Director General, Indian Store Department), and S. K. Anand (Firstsecretary Establishment) in London on or about 8/09/1958,alleging that the respondent had accepted illegal gratification fromhim and an open car from another firm for passing the goods suppliedby them to the Government of India. \ summary of this complaintwas prepared by these three officers on 9/09/1958 and signedon 12/09/1958. Thereupon, N. S. Pandey, Financial Adviserto the High Commission for India in London, went to Germany for investigation into these allegations and reported that there was substance inthe complaint. \ summary of this complaintwas prepared by these three officers on 9/09/1958 and signedon 12/09/1958. Thereupon, N. S. Pandey, Financial Adviserto the High Commission for India in London, went to Germany for investigation into these allegations and reported that there was substance inthe complaint. As a result of this report, the Government of India serveda memorandum on the respondent intimating that it was proposed tohold an enquiry against him under Rule 1730 of the Indian Railwayestablishment Code, Volume 1. Three charges were framed against therespondent and they are as followed :- CHARGE 1.-That Shri H. C. Sarin while functioning as the Seniorrailway Inspecting Officer in the Indian Store Department a. t Londonduring the period between December, 1956 and May, 1958 demandedand obained illegal gratification from the firm of Messrs Leo Gottwaldof Dusseldorf. Charge II.-That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid the said Shri H. C. Sarin violated rule 10 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1956 in that he accepted an open carfrom Messrs Talbots of Aachen as a gift. Charge III.-That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid the said Shri H. C- Sarin used his Official influence for personal advancement. ( 3 ) A statement of allegations was annexed to the aforesaid memorandum which, inter alia required the respondent to submit to the Chairman of the Board of Inquiry a written statement of his defence notlater than 30/04/1959. The respondent was also asked, (a) whether he desired to be heard in person ; (b) to furnish the names andaddresses of the witnesses whom he wished to call in support of his defence ; and (e) to furnish a list of documents which he wished to producein support of his defence. The respondent was also asked to intimatewhether he desired to be heard in person and was informed that he may,during the enquiiy, be accompanied by another officer of the Indian Railways stationed in the United Kingdom or by any other officer of thegovernment of India in the United Kingdom to act as the defence counsel, provided that such officer was not a professional lawyer or one cornetent to practice in a Court of Law. It may be mentioned that thisright of having a defence counsel, who was not a professional lawyer orone competent to practice in a Court of Law, was in accordance withnote (3) to Rule 1730 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume- I, and the said note is in the following terms :- "in a departmental enquiry, the accused railway officer may, ifhe so desires, be accompanied by another railway officer providedthat the officer so nominated as the defence counsel is approved bythe competent authority to act as such, and provided also that theperson so nominated shall not be a professional lawyer. The term professional lawyer includes those persons who are competent topractice in a court of law". ( 4 ) ALSO enclosed with the memorandum were (1) a summary of thestatement of Dr. Gottwald made on 8/09/1958 as stated above; (2) a further statement of, and a list of certain documents submitted bydr. Gottwold on 21/10/1958, and (3) the report dated 19/01/1959 of NT. S. Pandey, containing the result of his investigation andhis view that there was sufficient prima fade evidence in support of themain allegations made by Dr Gottwald against the respondent. ( 5 ) THE writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by thelearned Single Judge, who held that the principles of natural justice hadbeen violated by the Board of Inquiry in the following particulars :- (A) That the Board had refused permission to the respondentto go to Germany for the purpose of studying the accounting procedure etc. which was prevailing in the firm of Dr. Gottwald. (B) That the Board had refused the request of the respondent toengage a counsel to cross-examine Dr. Gottwald. (C) That the Board had examined S. N. Hussain and L. T. Madnanias defence witnesses on 21/07/1959 and S. N. Hussain again on 14/08/1959 in the absence of the respondent and without notice to him. (D) That the Board had examined S. N. Hussain, L. T. Madnani, Bhalla, Sharma, Johri and Sen as defence witnesses and notas witnesses of the Department. (E) That M. A. Hussain, Chairman of the Board, was biasedagainst the respondent. (F) That the Board had forwarded copies of all the orders pass. ed by him in the matter and directions given to the respondent tom. R. Sachdev for comments. (E) That M. A. Hussain, Chairman of the Board, was biasedagainst the respondent. (F) That the Board had forwarded copies of all the orders pass. ed by him in the matter and directions given to the respondent tom. R. Sachdev for comments. (G) That the Chairman of the Board without waiting for the decision of the Government of India on the respondent s representationto change him, started taking effective steps to send the respondentback to India. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel on both sides have taken us through thevolumnious correspondence that was exchanged between the respondentand the Chairman of the Board right from 10/04/1959, that is soonafter the service of the charge-sheet till the conclusion of the enquiryproceedings on 6/10/1959. ( 7 ) MR. Niren De, Additional Solicitor General, has contended onthe basis of this correspondence that there has been no breach of theprinciples of Natural Justice in respect of any of the circumstances whichfound favour which the learned Single Judge. His contention is thatfrom the very start, the respondent s attempt was to stultify the inqui-vand his attitude was one of complete non-co-operation. On the: othe rhand, Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended thatthe overall atmosphere prevailing throughout the period from the commencement of the investigation to the conclusion of the enqury was oneof hostility and prejudice against the respondent. ( 8 ) THE first circumstance which has found favour with the learnedsingle Judge is about the refusal of the Board to permit the respondentto proceed to Germany to collect information required for his defence. The respondent wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Board, hereinafterreferred TO as "the Chairman" on 10/04/1959, requesting "permission to visit: Germany to collect essential information required" forsubmitting his written defence as the charges REFERRED TO a peiiod of thepast two to three years. In reply to this letter, the Chairman wrote tothe respondent to inform the Board about the purpose for which a visitto Germany was desired and also names and addresses of persons whomthe respondent wanted to contact and the papers that he. vished toexamine. The respondent did not specify either the names of the persons or the papers that he wanted to examine in Germany. vished toexamine. The respondent did not specify either the names of the persons or the papers that he wanted to examine in Germany. In fact, byhis letter dated 20th April, 199, the respondent stated that until hehad inspected the documents he would not be in a position to knowwhat items or facts he required to in vestigate or to check in Germany. However, he postponed the consideration of this application so that hemay in due course specify the visits, persons and papers. This lettermakes it deal that the respondent undertook to specify the personswhom he wanted to contact and the papers that he wanted to examinein Germany. Since, initially, the written statement of defence had to befiled on or before 30/04/1959, the Chairman, by his letter dated 21stapril, 19^9, asked the respondent that the information as to the personsand papers should be supplied not later than 30/04/1959. Therespondent did not file his written statement on the date fixed but wroteto the Chairman that it was necessary for him to examine in detail"gottwald s system of accounting, store keeping procedure for telephoneaccounting, mailing letters, etc. Likewise the system of telephoneaccounting, booking, mailing letters etc. at other firms mentioned bydr. Gottwald. " In reply, the Chairman wrote to the respondent byletter dated 1/05/1959, that it was not necessary to make a visit togermany because witnesses pertaining to all these matters will be calledby the Board for examination and the respondent would be given fullopportunity to elicit all relevant information required by him. Therespondent replied to this letter on 4/05/1959 and stated that theexamination of picked witnesses alone at the enquiry would not indicatea clear picture of the procedure of accounting, store keeping etc. Theboard, by its letter dated th May, 1959 informed the respondent thatin their view it was not necessary for the respondent to undertake thejourney to Germany to study the procedures in accounting, store keeping etc. The correspondence on this subject ceased with the respondent sletter dated 10/05/1959, in which he expressed his regret at theboard s decision. We have given our careful consideration to thiscorrespondence and we are of the view that the refusal of the Board topermit the respondent to visit Germany, in the circumstances of thecase, cannot be termed as a breach of the principles of natural justice. We have given our careful consideration to thiscorrespondence and we are of the view that the refusal of the Board topermit the respondent to visit Germany, in the circumstances of thecase, cannot be termed as a breach of the principles of natural justice. We do not see how a visit to Germany would have helped the respondentin making a proper defence to the charges. As has been stated earlier,the two statements made by Gottwald and the documents produced byhim were in London and copies of these statements had been furnishedto the respondent. We have gone through the statements of Gottwaldand with particular reference to the main plea of albi, which was takenby the respondent in his written defence, it is not understandable as tohow a visit to Germany would have helped the respondent except tomake what may be called a fishing inquiry. Admittedly, none of thedocuments which had been produced by Gottwald in support of hisallegations against the respondent bore the signatures of the respondent. In the circumstances, it is difficult to follow how the examination ofgottwald s system of accounting. Store-keeping, mailing lettersetc. could have helped the respondent in making his defence. Our feelingis that by entering into this lengthy correspondence, the respondentwas merely trying to delay the proceedings and there was no real necessity of his visiting Germany for the purpose of preparing his defence. It has also to be noticed that this request for visiting Germany wasmade without any assertion that Gottwald or other persons in Germanyhad agreed to such examination of their accounting system etc. by therespondent. This ground has, in our opinion, no substance. ( 9 ) THE next ground is that the respondent was not permitted thefacility of engaging a counsel for the purpose of cross-examination of Dr. Gottwald, Mr. Chopra has put forward an ingenious argument that theprohibition against the engagement of a professional lawyer in note (3)TO Rule 1730 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, pertains to the engagement for the whole enquiry and not for a part of theinquiry. In view of the language of note (3) to Rule 1730, this argument has only to be stated to be rejected. Mr. In view of the language of note (3) to Rule 1730, this argument has only to be stated to be rejected. Mr. De has argued that note (3) to Rule 1730 is a complete answer to this ground of attack particularly when the vires of Rule 1/30, which is a statutory rule, have notbeen challenged in the writ petition and we agree with him. Mr. De has,however, addressed before us a general argument that the refusal to engage a lawyer is not per se a breach of the principles of natural justice. It is not necessary to refer to all the cases which have been cited at thebar and it will be sufficient if reference is made to a decision of themysore High Court in D. Made Gowda v. The State of Mysore, -whereall the law on the subject has been discussed. The result of all these deisions is that the refusal to permit representation by a professional lawyer in a domestic enquiry would not vitiate the enquiry. Mr. Choprahas placed considerable reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh Highcourt in Dr. K. Subba Rao v. State of Hyderabad", where the learnedchief Justice has held that when the public servant is under a reasonableapprehension that the enquiry is the result of a preconceived plan and aconcerted action on the part of his Department, his request (or professional help is certainly justified and the enquiry officer should give him thatopportunity and refusal to accede to that request certainly deprives thepublic servant of an opportunity to defend himself. Even according tothis decision, the essential requirement is that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the public servant of what may. be called a conspiracy to implicate him. No such case has been made out there. Theonly reason, so far as we have been able to see, for the request fur engaging a counsel for cross-examining Gottwald was that he was a professional lawyer. The only evidence that we have been able to find inthis regard is that Gottwald was enrolled as a lawyer and there is noevidence that he was practicing as such. Whatever the position maybe, the fact that a witness in a domestic enquiry is a lawyer does notmake it a requirement of the principles of natural justice that the publicservant should be afforded permission to engage a lawyer to cross-examine such a witness. Whatever the position maybe, the fact that a witness in a domestic enquiry is a lawyer does notmake it a requirement of the principles of natural justice that the publicservant should be afforded permission to engage a lawyer to cross-examine such a witness. It will be relavant in his connection to notice thatthe plea of the respondent was one of alibi. The respondent has statedin paras 18 and 20 of his writ petition that he was not in Dusseldor forwithin a motorable distance during the period when the payments byway of illegal gratification are alleged to have been made to him. Inview of this (left nce, we do not see how the engagement of a lawyerwould have facilitated the cross-examination of Gottwald. We are,therefore, of the view that in the circumstances of this case, there hasbeen no violation of the principles of natural justice by the refusal ofthe Board to have permitted the respondent to engage a lawyer for crossexamining Gottwald. ( 10 ) THE next point that has been held by the learned Single Judgeagainst the appellant is that "the Board was not justified in examiningmessrs S. N. Hussain and L. T. Madnani as defence witnesses on 2 1/07/1939, and the former again on 4/08/1959: in the petitioner sabsence and without notice to him. " It will be relevant to notice herethat 21 witnesses were examined by the Board at Dusseldor between 13/07/1959 and 17/07/1959 in the absence of the respondent. Quite fairly, Mr. Chopra, has not made any complaint about the examination of these witnesses in the absence of the respondent. The complaint, however, is that the respondent had at no time given any indication to the Board that he would not appear and participate in the enquiry proceedings in all its stages. According to Mr. Chopra, all thatcan be inferred from the correspondence which passed between the repondent and the Board or its Charmin is that the respondent had expressed his unwillingness to participate in the enquiry at Dusseldorf. Mr. Chopra contend that the Board was bound to give notice and the respondent was entitled to get notice of the proceedings of the Boardwhich were held in London on 21/07/1959 and thereafter Mr. Mr. Chopra contend that the Board was bound to give notice and the respondent was entitled to get notice of the proceedings of the Boardwhich were held in London on 21/07/1959 and thereafter Mr. Nirende, on the other hand, has contended that it is evident from the respondent sletters-particularly his letters dated 14/06/1959 and 20thjune, 1959, that the respondent had notified to the Board of his decisionnot to participate in the enquiry in any of its stages. Mr. Niren Dehas invited our attention first to the respondent s letter dated 27th May,l959 which according to him, discloses the attitude with which the repondent was approaching the whole matter. The respondent has stated. Faced with false a: -. d grave charges, coupled with the fact that I hadnot and have not any Kailway Official to assist me and a. :t as my defencecounsel, has been a very heavy and tremendous strain on me. Inview, thefore. of the position, I am in at present, I feel therewill be no point in my insisting for an oral enqui. y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "in spite of this attitude it is argued the Board informed the respondentof its decision to hold an oral enquiry in London and in Duss-ldorf andalso informed the respoi dent that he will be informed about the arrangements and the witnesses whim it was intended to call. There was someintervening correspondence which is not relevant to this aspect of thematter and the next relevant letter is dated 14/06/1959 by whichthe respondent, while repeating his grievances, has stated "in the circumstances that I have been put into, and hardly bean left any choice,i feel no useful purpose can be served by my attending such an enquiryor having anything further to do with such an enquiry. " The board,by its letter dated 18/06/1959 still asked the respondent to informthe Board "before 25/06/1967 whether or not you propose to presenty. urself for Oral enquiry at Dusseldorf or such other places as the Boardmay determine, on the date s to be intimated to you shortly. If not, asauthorised by the Government of India in paragraph 4 of their Memorandum no. AV-27- (3)/58 (l) of April, 3, the Board will proceed with theenquiry ex-parte on the basis of the written statement already submittedby you. If not, asauthorised by the Government of India in paragraph 4 of their Memorandum no. AV-27- (3)/58 (l) of April, 3, the Board will proceed with theenquiry ex-parte on the basis of the written statement already submittedby you. the respondent did not even then inform the Board that hewould participate in the enquiry. On the other hand, the respondentwrote a letter to the Board on the 20/06/1959, where he stated thatthe Board s letter dated 18th June, 195and "confirms my original fearsand I can only most respectfully reiterate and refer you to all what isstated in my letter dated 14/06/1959. " Theie can therefore, beno doubt that the respondent had decided to boycott the enquiry unlesshisdemands were acceded to. Upon receiving the respondent s letterdated 20/06/1959, the Board could easily hive discontinued Communication with the respondent, but the Board again wrote to the respondent on 22nd Juns, 1959, inter alia, asking the respondent to indicateto the Board on or before 25/06/1959, whether the respondentproposed to present himself for oral enquiry at Dusseldorf or such otherplaces as the Board may determine. In reply, by his letter dated 2 3/06/1959, the respondent reasserted the stand that he had taken inthe afore-mentioned letters dated 14th and 20th June, 19. 59. By theirletter dated 26/06/1959 ths Board extended the date for the respondent s reply by five days and requested the respondent to inform theboard categorically before 30/06/1959 whether you porpose topresent yourself at Dusseldorf on the dates mentioned above so thatarrangements can be made lor your passage and accommodation atdusseldorf. A list of witnesses so far expected to be examined at Dasseldorf is enclosed herewith. " The respondent,in his reply dated 2 9/06/1959 again affirmed the stand that he had taken in his letters dated 14th and 20/06/1959. On 2/07/1959, the Board informedthe respondent to proceed to Dusseldorf on 13/07/1959 to participatein the oral proceedings at Dusseidorf. But, by his letter dated 8/07/1959 the respondent again REFERRED TO his letters dated 14th and 20/06/1959. It is needless to specifically mention the subsequent correspondence between the respondent and the Board except to say that hi re. iterated his stand taken in the letter, dated 14th and 20/06/1959. In the circumstances of this case, the atltiude which was adopted by therespondent cannot be described otherwise than as an attitude of non-coperation or of boycott of the enquiry. iterated his stand taken in the letter, dated 14th and 20/06/1959. In the circumstances of this case, the atltiude which was adopted by therespondent cannot be described otherwise than as an attitude of non-coperation or of boycott of the enquiry. It was not necessary for theboard to give any information to the respondent about the subsequentstages or proceedings of the enquiry. It is not as it th3 respondent wasunaware of the examination of S. N. Hussain and L. T. Madna. ni by theboard in London on 21/07/1959. If he had been unaware he couldnot have written his letter dated 24/07/1959 to the Board requesting- that copies of the Statements made by Mr. S. N. Hussain be suppliedto him. ( 11 ) THE position, therefore, is that time and again the respondentreiterated his decision to taken no further part in the inquiry proceedings. His letters dated 14th and 20th June, 1959 and his subsequent affirmation thereof, in so for as the participation in the eaquicy was concerned, disentitled him to any notice of the proceedings of the Boardwhen S. N. Hussain and L. T. . Madnani were examined in London on 2 1/07/1959 and of the proceedings of the Board on 4/08/1959 whens. N. Hussain was further examined. We, therefore, hold that no noticeof the proceedings of the Board in London was called for an, in any casethe respondent knew about these proceedings and could have appearedtherein if he so chose. In that view of the matter, it is not possible tosay that any principle of natural justice was violated in this behalf, ( 12 ) IN this connection, another subsidiary point made by Ms. Chopra,learned cousel for the respondent, is that the Board wrote to G. P. Bhalla, R. S. Sharma, A. Johri and A. Sen (who were then in India) asking them whether they knew anything about the allegations and chargesmade against the respondent, and Mr. Chopra says that since the Boardelicite information from these people, who had been cited by the respondent as defence witnesses, bahind the back of the respondent the Boardviolated the principles of natural Justice. WJ think that the Judgmentof the Supreme Court in tha cas^ of Major U. K. . Bhalt v. Union of India*,is a complete, answer to this alleged grievance. WJ think that the Judgmentof the Supreme Court in tha cas^ of Major U. K. . Bhalt v. Union of India*,is a complete, answer to this alleged grievance. The Supreme Court hasobserved that where the Enquiry Officer had afforded to the public ser-vant an oppoturnity to remain present and to make his defence but be-cause of the conduct of tli3 public servant in declining to participate inthe enquiry, all the witnesses of the State, who could have bean examin-ed in support of their case were not examined visa voce, the Enquiryofficer wasjustifiidii proceeding to act upon tha materials placed be-fore him. But the matter did not r^st there. The Board b / th^ir letterdated 24/07/1959 informed the respondent that as he had failed tosubmit the questionnaire for tha examination on commission of theseofficers in India by 25th Jii ie, 195^ the B.)ard had no alternative but toascertain the fa ts pertaining to the charges from thes? witaisses directly. Even after this, the respondent in his letters to th^ Biard his referredback to his letters dated 14th and 20/06/1959. Furthsr, ths abovementioned officers were cited as defence witnesses by the respondent. The Board evidently wanted to know whether th y had any relavantinformation to give. Under the cit ourn tances of this case, it is immit-erial whether they were termed as defence witnesses or prosecution wit-nesses. In fact, they gave no material evidence in the case nor wa -. theirevidence used against the resdondent. It has alsi not bsen sho^n howtheir examination by correspondence as aforesaid has prejudiced therespondent. We, theretore, hold that the action of the Board in tryingto elicit information from ths above named officers who were in Indiawasjustified and cannot be challenged as a breach of the principles ofnatusal justice. ( 13 ) THE next argument of the respondent which found favour withthe learned Single Judge was that the Chairman of the Biard, Mr. At. A. Hussain, was biased against the respondent as he had in his capacityas the Deputy High Commissioner of India in London formed his opi-nion that there was frima fade case on the complaint made bv Gottwalagainst the respondent. In this connection, it is to b noticed that theallegations of bias have been made not against the entire Board whichwas constituted by three highly placed officials, but only against itschairman, Mr. M. A. Hussain. In this connection, it is to b noticed that theallegations of bias have been made not against the entire Board whichwas constituted by three highly placed officials, but only against itschairman, Mr. M. A. Hussain. Ilia resp indent has enumerated his corn-plaint constituting bias in his letter dated 5/10/1959 to theboard. The main allegations are that Mr. M. A. Hus. sain hid mad^ uphis mind even before the commene m^nt of the proceedings (. f the enqu-iry that there was a firima falie case against th? resp^nd^nt, aid thatmr. M-A. Hussain was very communal in his outlook. We may stateatonce that there is no basis or foundation for the allegation thatmr. M. A. Hussain had a conaniunal bias. With regard to the firstallegation, the complaint is that Mr. M. A. Hussain wa -> of the viewthat there was a frima ]acie case against the respondent and thisview of his had been corn. nunicated t:) th3 Chairmen of the Railwayboard in N w Da!hi by his letter dated 24th 0 tober, 1958 by which herecommended disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Tha fur-ther argument is that although the Government of India wanted a fullinvestigation into the allegations, Mr. M. A. Hussain by his letter datedtfthdecebers,1958 reiterated his opinion that a priinafacis case hadbeen established. We may mention here that although Mr. M. A. Hus-sain held this opinion, he handed over the papers to Mr. N. S, Pandey,financial Adviser with the request to conduct a detailed preliminaryinvestigation into the allegations as soon as he was asked by the Goverament to do so. It may also be mentioned that Mr. M. A. Hussain suggested to the Government that he may not be appointed Chairman ofthe Board as he was otherwise busy. From thematerial before us itappears to us that he had no personal interest in the matter. We mayalso mention that although the respondent wrote numerous letters to theboard, his allegation of bias came for the first time only in his letterdated 5/10/1959, when the enquiry proceedings had been almostcompleted. In the writ petition, the basis for the allegations of bias wasthat Mr. M. A. Hussain had made some adverse cumments against therespondent and recommended that disciplinary proceedings be takenagainst the respondent. In the writ petition, the basis for the allegations of bias wasthat Mr. M. A. Hussain had made some adverse cumments against therespondent and recommended that disciplinary proceedings be takenagainst the respondent. Mr Niren De contends that allegations of biaswere not made before the enquiring authority, but were made to thegovernment of India for the first time on 5/10/1959 and then inthe wiit petition filed by him and he says that on this ground alone, theallegation of bias should not be taken into consideration. He has reliedupon a judgment of Vaidialingam J. when he was a Judge cf the Highourt at Kerala,inthe case of Devakuran v. Circle Inspector of Police,munnar and others, where the learned Judge has hid that where a challenge is made to the Jurisdiction of the enquiry officer on the ground thathe is biased against the workman, such challenge should be raised beforethe enquiry officer and it was not open to the workman to attack thefindings when they are against him. Another case which has been upon by Mr. Niren De is the case of Srikant Upadhya v. Union ofindia , where the learned Judges have held that mere participation ofone of the members of a Departmental Enquiry Committee in the earlier fact finding enquiry committee will not legally disqualify such member to andit on the departmental enquiry. We have carefully gone intothe correspondence which was addressed by Mr. M. A Hussain as Chairman of the Board of Inquiry to the respondent and we are unable tofind anything in that correspondence which is likely to lead to the conclusion that Mr. M. A. Hussain was biased against the respondent. Infact, as Chairman of the Board, he gave the respondent opportunity afteropportunity to come and participate in the enquiry. Further, inspiteoi his prima fade opinion against the respondent, he handed over thepapers to N. S. Pandey for further investigation when so directed by thegovernment of India. We must also take note of the fact that not evenan allegation of bias has been made against the other two members ofthe Board of Inquiry. In the circumstances, we repeal the contentionthat the mere fact that. Mr. M. A. Hussain had recommended enquiryagainst the respondent Would lead to the conclusion that he was biasedagainst the respondent is so far the proceedings of the enquiry were concerned. In the circumstances, we repeal the contentionthat the mere fact that. Mr. M. A. Hussain had recommended enquiryagainst the respondent Would lead to the conclusion that he was biasedagainst the respondent is so far the proceedings of the enquiry were concerned. ( 14 ) THE next circumstance which weighed with the learned Singlejudge was that copies of all orders passed by the Chairman in connectionwith the enquiry were sent to Mr. M. R. Sachdev, who was the Secretaryof the Ministry of Railways, for his comments.- The learned Single Judge has specifically REFERRED TO a letter dated 1/05/1959, from Mr. M. A. Hussain to Mr. M. R. Sachdeva, wherein the decisions of the Boarddated 15th and 21/04/1959 and 1st May 19)9, which had beencommunicated to the respondent were adverted to and comments ofor. those decisions were requested. These letters were in respect of routine matters relating to the procedure aid conduct of the proceedingsof the Board and we do not see bow they are in contravention of Rule1730 of the India Railway Establishment COde, Volumae I,or of theprinciples of natural justice as hild by the learned Judge. Mr. Nirende has aruged that it was really the Government which was holdingthe enquiry-arid there was nothing worng in Mr. M. A Hussain s asking for comments as he was only a delegate of the Government. It isnot possible for us to. accept this extreme contention. V the commentsif any, received from the Goverment at the request of Mr. M. A. Hu-ssain had any thing to do with the merits of the case, which could. have weighed. or did weigh with the Board in coming to a conclusionabout the. guilt or innocence of the respondent, non-disclosure of suchcomments. to the respondent would, in our opinion, certainly amount to abreach of the principles of natural-Justice. . The. Board of inquiry is aquasi judicial body and it has to conduct the proceedings of the enquiryin,accordance with the. ,principles of natural justice. Their decision willhave to-be an independent decision and should not be influenced bythe opinion that might. be. expressed by the Government. But there isnothing on ths record to show that any comments were made by thegovernment with regand to the merits of the controversy so as to inflence the final judgment of the Board. . Asstated above, the letters adverted to specifically by the learned-Single Judge were only with respectto routine matters relating to. . be. expressed by the Government. But there isnothing on ths record to show that any comments were made by thegovernment with regand to the merits of the controversy so as to inflence the final judgment of the Board. . Asstated above, the letters adverted to specifically by the learned-Single Judge were only with respectto routine matters relating to. . the procedure to be adopted in the enquiryand we are. unable- to see how comments, if any, with reference to procedural matters can be violative of the principles of natural justice orany contravention of Rule 1730.- ( 15 ) MR. Chopra. has also argued that documents were not made available for. inspection to the respondent. In his letter dated 14/06/1959, one of the complaints made by the respodent was that the Field -Inspection Papers and- files of the Essen. Area were not provided to himthe Board controverted this allegation in their letter dated l 8/06/1959, where it has been stated that the respondent had been given freeaccess to all available documents. This complaint was repeated in therespondent s letter dated 20/06/1959 and the Board s assertion wasreiteredinits. letterdated- 22/06/1959, where the Board furtherstated "but if you feel. that there are any other documents connected. with your defence which you. wish to see, then youshould present yourself to Colonel Hendricks, a member of the Boardof Inquiry, on Wednesday, the-24th, at 11a. M. at lsd and he. willarrange for yau to see the RIB Registry and the Dead File Store. . Theboard of Enqniry have not withheld nor do they wish to withhold anydocument relevant to-the. enquiry. " This offer was not accepted bythe respondent as is evident from his letter date23rd June,, 1. 959 wherehe stated i would respectfully submit. that there is no objection in myseeing the ISD Registry or. the ISD, Dead File Store, when I have beenwanting to see the Field Inspection Papers and Files of inspection conduted in the Essen Area of Germany. . . . . . "by their letter dated ,2 6/06/1959, the Board informed the respondent "that there are no inspection papers is relating to the Gottwald contract other than those whichhave a. lready been fully examined by you and of which you have alreadyreceived such copies as. you, desired. . These papers included . full inspection. paper pertaining to the Gflttwald cantract. Further. Colonel Hendrick offered you every facility if you came to ISD. you, desired. . These papers included . full inspection. paper pertaining to the Gflttwald cantract. Further. Colonel Hendrick offered you every facility if you came to ISD. to ask the RIBofficers concerning-any other papers you may have in mind, and furtheryou were permitted to search the. Registry concerned and the. Dead Filewith the assistance of a clerk, but you declined to avail yourself of allthe facilities offered to you now, having done so on earlier occassions. The Board feel therefore, that in view of the position stated above andthe fact that you have not so far mentioned any specific documentwhich you need, the Board is satisfied that you have been given thefullest opportunity forpreparing your defence. " Instead of coming tothe ISD office as suggested by the Board, the respondent merely repeatedhis request by his letter dated 29/06/1959. The Board, in theirletter dated 2/07/1959 gave an assurance to the lespondent that hewould be given access to any further field inspection papers which became available in the future. Thereafter, it appears that inspection ofthe documents which were in the possession of the Board or of theindian Store Department in London was given to the respondent on 9/07/1959. The respondent continued to make vague allegations thatall documents were not shown to him and this resulted in the letterdated 24/07/1959 from the Board to the respondent, asking therespondent to fumish a list of documents upon which the respondentwanted to rely for his defence. Inspite of this, no list specifying thedocuments the respondent wanted was furnished to the Boa:d. It appears to us to be clear from this correspondence that all legitimate demands of the respondent for the inspection of papers which were available in the ISD office in London were fullfilled, but the respondent wenton making unfounded claims in this behalf without specifying the documents. We, therefore, hold that all documents which were available inthe ISD office in London were made available to the respondent. ( 16 ) THE final argument of Mr. Chopra was that the respondentmade a representation to the Government by his letter dated 5/10/1959, acopy of which was sent to the Board. according to Mr. Chopra, the Board should have withheld its findiags and should nothave proceeded further with the enquiry until a reply to this reoresentation was received from the Government and, says Mr. Chopra was that the respondentmade a representation to the Government by his letter dated 5/10/1959, acopy of which was sent to the Board. according to Mr. Chopra, the Board should have withheld its findiags and should nothave proceeded further with the enquiry until a reply to this reoresentation was received from the Government and, says Mr. Chopra thatsince the Board proceeded to give their findings, it violated the principles of natural justice. It appears that the Government of India ordered the transfel of the respondent back to India on 6/10/1959in spite of the representation of the respondent to be a ow d to stav inlondon till a decision was taken on his representation dated 5/10/1959. The learned Single Judge remarks-"in all fairness to the petitioner the Government of India should have taken a decision on his representation and if they found that it was without merit should have dismissed it and informed him accordingly in time. The petitioner mighthave decided in that event to appear before the board as constitutedand completed the enquiry which was left incomplete on 6/10/1959. " The learned Single Judge further remarks that the. Board "submitted its report on the basis of an incomplete. enquiry for which thepetitioner indeed could not be blamed and that being so the protectionbestowed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India on the petitionerhad not been allowed to be properly exercised by him. " With respectto the learned Judge, we have not been able to. follow either the reasoning or the conclusion arrived at by him. It is in evidence that thereport of the Board was given on 2/11/1959. We are unableto see why the Board should have waited for any reply to the representation made by the respondent to the Government on 5/10/1959,nor are we able to appreciate how this circumstance can. amount to vioaion of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. ( 17 ) MR. Chopra lastly contended that the proper approach to anappreciation of this case should be to take the totality of the circumstances into consideration and not any individual circumstance. We havealready pointed out that the individual grievances of the respondenthave no foundation in fact and /or in law. Even taking the totality ofcircumstances into consideration, as suggested by Mr. Chopra lastly contended that the proper approach to anappreciation of this case should be to take the totality of the circumstances into consideration and not any individual circumstance. We havealready pointed out that the individual grievances of the respondenthave no foundation in fact and /or in law. Even taking the totality ofcircumstances into consideration, as suggested by Mr. Chopra, we areof the view that the non-cooperation attitude of the respondent withrespect to putting in his defence or the proceedings before the Board suggests that the multifarious objections raised by the respondent in hisnumerous letters to the Board and other were put forward, not becausethey had any foundation in fact, lut because the respondent wanted toprepare his case for challenging his dismissal in a Court of Law. ( 18 ) WE, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of thelearned Single Judge and dismiss the above writ petition with costs Advocate s fee Rs. 250. 00