JUDGMENT Rajeshwari, Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India in which prayer has been made that by means of a writ of certiorari, the order of the Registrar of the Allahabad dated 1st September, 1965, and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court dated 25th September, 1965 be quashed. It has also been prayed that a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of the High Court, Allahabad not to realise a sum of Rs. 1174/- from the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition be also issued. The petitioner has further prayed that this Court be pleased to reinstate the petitioner to his post. The Division Bench which admitted the writ petition expressed the view that the petition deserves to be considered by a Division Bench. This is how this writ petition has come up for hearing before us. 2. The petitioner Babu Lal was appointed as Daftri in the year 1959 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and was confirmed and absorbed in permanent cadre in accordance with the Allahabad High Court Condition of service (Staff) Rules 1946. He was attached to the dispatch Department for a long time. On 31st October, 1964; Mr. K. B. Seth, Assistant, dispatch Section sent a note to Assistant Superintendent, Judicial Department saying that 58 registered notices were sent by the writ Section on 29th October, 1964 but the same were not available. It was also said in the report that the petitioner had locked the almirah of the section. Sri. V. N. Mehrotra, Assistant Superintendent, Judicial Department directed that a search be made and the matter be reported to him thereafter. On 13th November, 1964, Sri. K. B. Chhaturvedi had made a report to the Munsarim, Writ Section pointing out the loss of 25 notices of 25 different cases, which were sent to the dispatch Section through the peon of Writ Section. It was also pointed out that on the next day, the dispatcher refused to give his signature on the dispatch register on the plea that he had not received the notices. According to the peon of Writ Section, the notices were kept in the almirah of the dispatch section in the presence of Sri Ram Chandra, an Assistant of dispatch section, and Babu Lal Daftri (the petitioner) in the said section. 3. According to the peon of Writ Section, the notices were kept in the almirah of the dispatch section in the presence of Sri Ram Chandra, an Assistant of dispatch section, and Babu Lal Daftri (the petitioner) in the said section. 3. A report was then sought for from the petitioner, who submitted the same. Sri V. N. Mehrotra, Assistant Superintendent, Judicial Department thereafter reported that the petitioner was responsible for the missing postage stamps, postal receipts and the bundle containing 58 registered notices of the writ section. According to the petitioner, this report of Sri Mehrotra could not form the basis of the enquiry, which has resulted in the termination of the petitioner's services. Mr. Mehrotra had failed to mention the duties of the Daftri. Shri Amarnath Kapur, Deputy Registrar, High Court in his report dated 19th November, 1964 made to the Registrar, expressed the view that it had become difficult to fix the responsibility of loss on any person. Shri S. K. P. Joshi Deputy Registrar made enquiries regarding the distribution of work among the dispatchers, whereupon Shri Mehrotra gave a reply in which he did not specify the various duties which were to be performed by the Daftri. That reply of Mr. Mehrota was entirely malicious and vague and was made with a view to rope in the petitioner, if and when an occasion arose. Mr. Mehrotra himself had laid the responsibility on the petitioner in his report even though there was no direct evidence against him. It was on the basis of the recommendation of Mr. Mehrotra that enquires were started against the petitioner According to the petitioner there was deliberate attempt to minimise the responsibility which are enforced on. Sri K. B. Seth, who according to the petitioner, was a puppet in the hands of Mr. Mehrotra and the Deputy Registrar Sri Kapoor. 4. Sri P. N. Goel, Joint Registrar, who was tire Enquiring Officer on behalf of the Registrar sent a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 10th March, 1965 alleging that the petitioner removed notices, copies and postage stamps of the value of Rs. 1263.30 relating to writ petitions, second appeals, civil revisions, F. As. F.O , miscellaneous cases and first appeals, from the dispatch section of the Judicial Department between 1st July 1964 and 13th November, 1964. It was also alleged that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct in discharge of his duties. 1263.30 relating to writ petitions, second appeals, civil revisions, F. As. F.O , miscellaneous cases and first appeals, from the dispatch section of the Judicial Department between 1st July 1964 and 13th November, 1964. It was also alleged that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct in discharge of his duties. The charge-sheet referred to certain in oral evidence also. The petitioner made an application asking that copies of the evidence which were to be used against him including the oral statements mentioned in the charge-sheet be supplied to him. No copy of the statements of persons referred to in the charge sheet were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, could not know the contents of statements of persons whom he had to cross-examine, if and when occasion arose. 5. The petitioner, however, filed a written statement denying his liability and spying that lie was not at all responsible for the loss. During the course of enquiry, Sri P. N. Goel, Enquiring Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses in English It was typed out and the petitioner was made to give an endorsement at the close of every statement by' putting his signature there on. The petitioner is an illiterate person any was materially prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the Enquiring Officer, who often frowned at the petitioner whenever something was suggested by the petitioner by way of cross-examination. The petitioner had a common law right of being represented through a counsel, but it was denied to him on the ground that paragraph 12 of the Instructions in respect of enquiry to be held under Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1930, prohibited such a representation by a counsel. 6. Mr. Goel preji diced the cruse of the petitioner by not giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements had been recorded in English with the assistance of a counsel and he gave a rinding which was mala fide. The Enquiring Officer made an adverse report against the petitioner relying on circumstantial evidence. He was mainly influenced by anonymous letters and statements of persons which were taken in English. The Enquiring Officer made an adverse report against the petitioner relying on circumstantial evidence. He was mainly influenced by anonymous letters and statements of persons which were taken in English. The re-after, the Registrar, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad sent a copy of the aforesaid report to the petitioner with a covering letter calling upon him to show- cause within a fortnight why the petitioner may' not be required to make good the loss of postage stamps worth Rs. 1174/- and also why be should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice before the Registrar saying that there was no direct evidence against him and that he was in no way' responsible for the loss. He also said that he was not guilty of any misconduct in the discharge of his duty. The Registrar, High Court, Allahabad passed the order sought to be quashed that the petitioner be removed from service with immediate effect and he further directed the petitioner to make good the loss of Rs. 1174/-24. 7. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Chief Justice, High Court, Allahabad. His request to be represented by a counsel in appeal was rejected by the Chief Justice without assigning any reasons therefor. For want of legal assistance, the petitioner could not place before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the arguments which could be advanced on his behalf. The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. According to him, it was possible for him to urge that the very enquiry was bad in law as the Registrar could only act as a Secretary to the Administrative Committee and could not partake the status of the member of the Committee. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice by his order dated 25th September, 1965 which is the second order which is sought to be quashed. It is on such allegations that reliefs which we have already mentioned has been sought by the petitioner. We have beard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. It is on such allegations that reliefs which we have already mentioned has been sought by the petitioner. We have beard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has principally made three submissions :- (1) Opportunity to defend himself was denied to him inasmuch as he was not permitted to have the assistance of a counsel : (2) No copy of the proceedings prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules was supplied to him after the punishing authority had arrived at provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner as required by Rule 5 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services of the year 1932, consequently, the petitioner did not have opportunity to defend himself; (3) Statements of witnesses at enquiry' were recorded in English and the petitioner could not effectively cross-examine them as he is illiterate. 9. In connection with the first ground, our attention was drawn to paragraph 12 of the Instructions regarding the holding of departmental enquiries under Rule 55. Paragraph 12 aforesaid requires that ordinarily, pleaders should not be allowed to appear in the enquire, for otherwise the enquiry might be prolonged. The person charged for is also not entitled is of right to ask for being defended by pleader in such enquiry, but there is no prohibition against allowing pleaders on either side and it must always be borne in mind that the person should have adequate opportunity of defending himself. If, therefore, the case is very complicated or difficult, or where the person charged is likely to be embarrassed, he may' allowed to have legal aid. On behalf of the petitioner, it was urged that it was a fit case in which the legal assistance should have been allowed to him at the stage of enquiry as well as at the stage of the hearing of the appeal from the order of the Registrar. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had orally made requests before the inquiring Officer to be permitted to have the assistance of a pleader or Advocate, but the per year was refused. There is, however, nothing on the record to indicate that such a request was orally made by the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had orally made requests before the inquiring Officer to be permitted to have the assistance of a pleader or Advocate, but the per year was refused. There is, however, nothing on the record to indicate that such a request was orally made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is denied that any such request was ever made. There are no reasons to discredit the averments of the counter affidavit on this part of the case. Before the appellate authority, however, it appears that the petitioner filed an application for permission to have the assistance of a counsel. Petitioner's application, however, was rejected with the observation that he was not entitled to the represented by a lawyer and that the appeal also did not involve any question of law which might need the assistance of a lawyer. The circumstances relied upon by the petitioner, however, justify his prayer. Grounds for the assistance of lawyer are that the statements of the witnesses at the enquiry were recorded in English and that the petitioner was illiterate. In the counter-affidavit, it has not been denied that the petitioner was illiterate. From the record also, it appears that he put his signatures wherever he was required to do so in Hindi Under these circumstances, it was not possible for the petitioner to urge his appeal effectively as he could not he in a position to refer to the testimony of the witnesses recorded in English. In the counter-affidavit, it has been said that the statements were taken in vernacular but they were translated and recorded in English. All the same, at the time of the hearing of the appeal, it generally is necessary to refer to the statement on the record and this the petitioner was not in a position to do. It further appeals that the entire record relating to the enquiry was kept confidential and was not available to the petitioner. All the same, at the time of the hearing of the appeal, it generally is necessary to refer to the statement on the record and this the petitioner was not in a position to do. It further appeals that the entire record relating to the enquiry was kept confidential and was not available to the petitioner. Copies of the proceedings before the Enquiring Officer were not supplied to him along with the second show cause notice, and all this could be pointed out to the appellate authority and submissions could have been made in case the petitioner was allowed to have assistance of a counsel One of the questions involved in the case was as to which of the various persons concerned with the department could be legally held responsible for the loss of the stamps and notices. To us, it appears that the last mentioned question was a question which could not be said to be absolutely free from difficulty. On the circumstances of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the petitioner could have pressed his appeal better if he had been allowed to engage a counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that paragraph 2 referred to above is violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and is, consequently, unenforceable. In view of the result at which we have arrived on this point, it is not necessary for us to enter in to that question. In support of his second submission, It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no copy of the proceedings prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules was supplied to him after punishing authority had arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. As required by Rule 5 of the punishment and Appeal Rule for Subordinate Services of the year 1932, Rule 5 referred to above lays down as follow's: - "The procedure laid down in rule 55 of the Civil Services 'Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as amended by Notification no. As required by Rule 5 of the punishment and Appeal Rule for Subordinate Services of the year 1932, Rule 5 referred to above lays down as follow's: - "The procedure laid down in rule 55 of the Civil Services 'Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as amended by Notification no. 0-227/11-B. 1953, dated January 30, 1953, shall be followed, before any of the punishments mentioned in that rule are imposed." This rule is followed by Rule 5-A which is as follows :- "After the inquiry against a Government servant has been completed, and after the punishing authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall, if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction, be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down under rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, excluding the recommendations, if any, in regard and to punishment, made by the officer conducting the inquiry,and asked to show cause by a particular date, which affords him reasonable time, why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him;" Rule 5-A quoted above clearly makes it essential that copy of the proceedings to be supplied to the person concerned along with the second show cause notice. In this case, Annexure "4" filed by the petitioner along with his affidavit is the notice which was served by the Registrar on the petitioner with regard to the proposed punishment. It shows that a copy of the report of the Enquiring Officer and nothing more was sent to the petitioner at that time. No materials on the file has been pointed to us, which may go to prove that copy of proceedings was also sent to the petitioner along with the second cause notice. In that view of the matter, it must be held that no copy of proceeding was sent to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice and the omission to do so involves contravention of Rule 5-A quoted above. It was, however, urged that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by not supplying him the copy of the proceedings. It was, however, urged that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by not supplying him the copy of the proceedings. In the first place, in view of the mandatory provision of the rule referred to above, it may not be necessary for the petitioner to establish prejudice, and in the second place, we have no doubt that the omission to supply the copy of the proceedings to the petitioner did result in prejudice to his cause. 10. With regard to the third submission, the record shows that the statements of the witnesses were recorded in English although according to counter-affidavit, the statements were actually made in vernacular but were translated into English and then recorded in the case. Even if the statements had been made in vernacular, and its record was maintained in English, we consider that the grievance of the petitioner is legitimate in respect of this matter. All that was left to the petitioner was to rely on his memory for the statements made by numerous witnesses recorded by the Enquiring Officer as it was not possible for him in view of his illiteracy to take any benefit of the record of those statements in English. On the whole, we are satisfied that reasonable opportunity to defend himself was not afforded to the petitioner in this case. This being so, the orders of the Registrar dated 1st September, 1965 and that of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in appeal dated 25th September, 1965 are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 1st September, 1965 passed by the Registrar of the High Court, of Judicature at Allahabad and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 25th September, 1965 are set aside and quashed. 11. In view of the success of the writ petition, the petitioner is not liable to disburse the sum of Rs. 1174/- as ordered by the Registrar. So far as the relief for his reinstatement is concerned, in our view, it is a matter to be attended to by the Registrar of the Court and we cannot in our writ jurisdiction grant that prayer. 12. We make no orders as to cost