JUDGMENT The petitioner was Head Jail Warder of the Midnapur Central Jail since 1956. On 11th August, 1967 the petitioner was served with charge sheet which reads as follows :- "Whereas you Sri Ramadhin Singh, Head Warder, while on duty over 32 cells from 11 P.M. to 1 A.M. on the night of 10.8.67 did not enter the 32 cell block and see the prisoners there and also did not obtain a report from your successor Head Warder, Sri Suraj Balli Pandey whether he had found the prisoners locks etc. in order as the keys in your possession, and handed over by you to your successor." The petitioner was placed under suspension and he was directed to show cause within 48 hours why he should not be dismissed from service or otherwise dealt with. Pending the enquiry of the aforesaid charge on 16th August, 1967 the petitioner was served with the second charge sheet which reads as follows :- "You left the Jail after duty at 1.31 A.M. on the night of 10.8.67 and your successor Head Warder Sri Suraj Balli Pandey entered the Jail at 1.30 A.M. It takes more than one minute time for a man to walk from Jail Gate to 32 Cells. Hence, it was not possible for Sri Suraj Balli Pandey to examine any of the 32 Cells and the inmates there by the time you left the Jail. You handed over the keys of 32 Cells to Sri Suraj Balli Pandey before he could reach the entrance to 32 cells. But you should have shown him the locks and prisoners of 32 cells and obtained a report from him that they were all right, before you left." In the second charge-sheet also the petitioner was directed to show cause within 48 hours as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a written explanation on the 18th August, 1967. 2. On the 5th September, 1967 the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the third time and he was again directed to show cause in writing within 48 hours as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet on the 7th September, 1967 and he prayed that an open enquiry be held. 2. On the 5th September, 1967 the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the third time and he was again directed to show cause in writing within 48 hours as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet on the 7th September, 1967 and he prayed that an open enquiry be held. Thereafter a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner alongwith the second show-cause notice, wherein it is stated that it is proposed to punish the petitioner with dismissal from service under Jail Code Rule, 325 and if the petitioner wants to make any representation against the proposed punishment, he might do so within five days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner duly replied to the second show cause notice wherein it is stated that inspite of his repeated verbal and written requests, the petitioner had not been favoured with any open enquiry and the names of the witnesses were not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28.12.67 the Superintendent, Midnapore Central Jail passed final order of punishment by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the forenoon of 28th December, 1967. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. 3. Mr. Mazumder, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in all the charge sheets which were served upon the petitioner, punishment of dismissal was indicated. In the instant case the charge sheet was framed by the Superintendent of Midnapur Central Jail. He was the Enquiring Officer and he was the punishing authority. It also appears from the three charge sheets that the enquiry office gave his judgment even before holding of the enquiry and thus rendering the entire proceeding a mere farce. Mr. Mazumder further pointed out that the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of violating the Jail Code Rule No. 739. But in those charge sheets nothing was stated about the violation of the said Jail Code. So, according to Mr. Mazumdar the petitioner was found guilty of the charge which was never served upon him and as such, the enquiry from the very beginning upto the end has been vitiated and there has been a clear violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 4. So, according to Mr. Mazumdar the petitioner was found guilty of the charge which was never served upon him and as such, the enquiry from the very beginning upto the end has been vitiated and there has been a clear violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 4. It appears that the Jail Superintendent who himself was a prosecutor, became an Enquiry Officer and was the punishing authority. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that the officer selected to make an enquiry should be a person with an open mind and not one who is either biased against the person against whom action is sought to be taken or one who has prejudged the issue. In (1) Choudhury v. The Union of India, reported in AIR 1956 Calcutta 662, Sinha, J. (as he then was) observed that an Enquiry Officer must not lower himself to the status of a common prosecutor, that is to say of a person who feels it a part of his function to bring the guilt home to the accused at any cost. He must act with the detachment of a Judge, since he is professing to exercise that dignified function. Moreover, it appears that three charge sheets were served upon the petitioner and it was indicated in all those charge sheets to the proposed punishment. The effect of indicating the punishment in the charge sheet itself is not contemplated by Article 311 (2) and is wholly inappropriate and such a proposal of penalty was not in compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution vide, in (2) Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 . 5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents, although Rule was duly served upon them. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed to controvert the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition. Accordingly, I hold that the entire enquiry proceeding beginning from issuing charge sheet and passing of the order of dismissal dated 28th December, 1967 by the Jail Superintendent must be quashed along with the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal, which is Annexure 'G' to the petition. Accordingly, this Rule is made absolute. Let a Writ of Certiorari be issued quashing the entire proceedings as well as the impugned appellate order. There will be no order for costs.