JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing an order) dated the 14th September, 1966, passed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Patna, Range (respondent no. 3), discharging him from Government service with effect from the date he was relieved by the Sub-divisional Agricultural Officer, Biharsharif. A copy of the said order is annexure “9” to the writ application. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ application, he was appointed to the post of Farm Assistant in the Department of Agriculture by an order, dated the 23rd February, 1959. The petitioner, in pursuance of the said order, joined the District Agriculture Office at Gaya. The petitioner has stated that he had been working as Farm Assistant attached to the Seed Multiplication Farm at Sherghati when by an order dated the 25th September, 1964, passed by respondent no. 3 he was transferred to Seed Multiplication Farm at Chandi and was posted under the Sub-divisional Agricultural Officer, Biharsharif. When the petitioner was working in the said Seed Multiplication farm, Chandi, he received a letter, dated the 31st March, 1965 under the Signature of respondent no. 3 containing charges framed against him. A copy of the said letter is annexure "2" to the writ application. In the said letter it was mentioned that the petitioner, while working as Farm Assistant Incharge Sherghati Seed Multiplication Farm, committed some irregularities and, if those omissions and commissions were proved against him, he was liable to be discharged from Government Service. The said letter also stated that Shri B.B. Tripathy, Assistant Director of Agriculture Farm, Patna Range had been appointed to act as the Conducting Officer relating to the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit his defence to the charges levelled against him by the 30th April, 1965 to the said Conducting Officer. It may be mentioned here that in the said letter it was pointedly stated that the petitioner "should also mention in his defence as to whether he wants to examine any witness..." The petitioner, according to the statement made in the writ application, submitted his show cause dated the 27th October, 1965. A copy of the said show Cause is annexure "3" to the writ application. A copy of the said show Cause is annexure "3" to the writ application. In the said show cause the petitioner dealt item wise with the different charges and made a prayer that he should be exonerated of the charges levelled against him. In the end of the show cause the petitioner stated : "In the end, I beg to submit that I reserve the right to be heard in person and adduce evidence in defence." It appears that the petitioner submitted a supplementary show cause on the 9th December, 1965 to the Conducting Officer. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 8 of the writ application that, after submitting his aforesaid show cause petition to the Conducting Officer, the petitioner all along remained waiting to receive notice from the Conducting Officer fixing a date of hearing him in person and examining witnesses in his defence, but no such notice was issued to the petitioner by the Conducting Officer nor any reason was assigned to him for not doing so. It is alleged by the petitioner that he received a second show cause notice under a letter dated the 15th March, 1966 stating therein that, during the course of the proceeding, it had been found that he was guilty of the charges, and, as such, he was asked to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. A copy of the said letter is annexure "4" to the writ application. 3. The petitioner, having received the said letter, requested respondent no. 3 to supply him copies of the documents mentioned in his petition. A copy of the said application of the petitioner dated the 4th April, 1966 is annexure "5" to the writ petition. From a bare reference to the said application it will appear that the petitioner wanted copies of the reports of the Sub-divisional Agricultural Officer and Additional Sub-divisional Officer, Sherghati against the explanation submitted by the petitioner; copy of the comments of the Conducting Officer on different items of the charges and copies of the findings of the competent authority who had acted on the basis of the enquiry report. In reply to the said letter, under a letter, dated the 22nd July, 1966, only a copy of the report of the Conducting Officer was forwarded to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his reply before the 10th August, 1968, otherwise it would be considered that he had nothing to say further in the matter. A copy of that letter is annexure "6" to the writ application. In this connection the petitioner has also annexed a copy of his letter, dated the 24th August, 1966 (Annexure "8")" which is in reply to the aforesaid letter, dated the 22nd July, 1966 (Annexure "6"). 4. In the letter (Annexure "8"), the petitioner again made a grievance that he had asked for copies of documents in order to enable him to file his show cause, but he had received only a copy of the findings of the Conducting Officer. In the said letter the petitioner pointedly made a grievance that he had reserved his right to be heard in person and to adduce evidence in defence, but no such opportunity had been given to him before passing the order holding him guilty of the charges. In this connection he referred to his first show cause, dated the 27th October, 1965 (Annexure "3"). The petitioner also made a grievance that he had not been given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, nor was he given an opportunity to submit his defence, meaning thereby, perhaps, to examine defence witnesses. 5. It appears, however, that by order, dated the 14th September, 1966 (Annexure "9"), the respondent Deputy Director of Agriculture, Patna Range, held that, after a careful examination of the evidence and findings of the Conducting Officer, the charges against the petitioner had been proved and, therefore, he discharged the petitioner from Government service with effect from the date he was relieved by the Sub-divisional Agricultural Officer, Biharsharif. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he filed a representation before respondent no. 3 on the 7th November, 1966. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order. He was not given any notice of hearing of the said appeal, although he renewed his prayer for an early hearing. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition it has been stated that he had not received any reply till the date of the filing of the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order. He was not given any notice of hearing of the said appeal, although he renewed his prayer for an early hearing. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition it has been stated that he had not received any reply till the date of the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner had also moved this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 1112 of 1968 which was allowed to be withdrawn on the undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate that the appeal of the petitioner would be disposed of at an early date. A copy of the order of this Court is annexure “10” to the writ petition. In spite of the aforesaid undertaking, no action appears to have been taken in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ application. 6. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. But the learned Standing Counsel No.2 has tried to justify the actions taken by the petitioner? (respondent) against the petitioner. 7. In absence of any counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, it has to be taken that the statements of fact in the writ petition are correct. Now the question is, as to whether there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice, or a breach of any rule, calling for an action by this Court in the circumstances of the case. 8. A bare reference to the order (Annexure "2") will show that, while forwarding the charges framed against the petitioner to him, it was ordered that a proceeding should be started against the petitioner in accordance with rule 167 of the Board's Miscellaneous Rules. It was further ordered that, the petitioner, while showing his cause, should also mention in his defence as to whether he wanted to examine any witness. Rule 167 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') prescribed the procedure in which a departmental proceeding has to be drawn up. It was further ordered that, the petitioner, while showing his cause, should also mention in his defence as to whether he wanted to examine any witness. Rule 167 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') prescribed the procedure in which a departmental proceeding has to be drawn up. Rule 166, which in my opinion, incorporates the principles of natural justice, lays down, that, without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants' Enquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on a Government servant unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take Action, and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself.. . . He shall be required, within a fortnight, to put in a written statement of his defence 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 allegation as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called, as he may wish. Provided, that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and specific reasons to be recorded in "writing, refuse to call witnesses'. In view of the afore said rule as well as on the principles of natural justice, every officer against whom departmental proceeding has been initiated, is entitled to be heard in person, if he so desires, and to cross-examine any witness who has to be examined against him and to examine any witnesses in support of his defence, unless it appears to the Conducting Officer that it is a dilatory tactics of the part of the proceedee. The principles of natural justice and fair play require that, no person should be condemned on a charge levelled against him without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself. In the instant case, no doubt the respondents proceeded in the beginning in accordance with the aforesaid rule 167 of the Rules, in as much as the petitioner was asked by annexure "2" as to whether he wanted to examine any witness in his case. In the instant case, no doubt the respondents proceeded in the beginning in accordance with the aforesaid rule 167 of the Rules, in as much as the petitioner was asked by annexure "2" as to whether he wanted to examine any witness in his case. By annexure "3", while refuting the charges levelled against him, the petitioner categorically stated that he reserved the right to be heard in person and adduce evidence in defence. There is no material to hold that, before the order (Annexure ‘4’) was passed holding that the charges against the petitioner had been proved, any opportunity was given to the petitioner to be heard in person or to cross-examine witness examined against him or to examine any witness in his defence. In annexure "4", simply the number of the charges and the number of the allegations are mentioned. It is further mentioned that, the petitioner was found guilty of those charges; no details are given. Even a copy of the enquiry report,' which had to be furnished to the proceedee, even according to rule 167 of the rules, was not furnished to the petitioner; though, later on it was found, it was supplied to him. The petitioner, however repeated his request even in his reply to the second show cause notice (Annexure "8") that he had reserved his right to be heard in person and to adduce evidence in his defence. But no such opportunity was afforded to him. Neither there is anything in the first order (Annexure "4") holding the charges to have been proved against the petitioner nor in the final order of his discharge (Annexure "9") that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner. As such, in my opinion, it has to be held that the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself, to which he was entitled in law. Apart from the aforesaid rules 166 and 167 of the Rules, it has been settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court, and this Court that in a departmental proceeding, on the principles of natural justice and fair play, every, person proceeded against is entitled to this much of opportunity. In this connection reference may be made to the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1623 and the State of Bombay Vs. Nurul Latif Khan, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 269. In this connection reference may be made to the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1623 and the State of Bombay Vs. Nurul Latif Khan, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 269. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that the order of discharge passed against the petitioner under annexure "9" is illegal. Accordingly, the two orders, one dated the 15th March, 1966 (Annexure "4") holding that the petitioner had been found guilty of the charges levelled against him, and the other dated the 14th September, 1966 (Annexure "9") discharging the petitioner from Government service are quashed by a writ of certiorari. It will, however, be open to the respondents, if they think proper to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 9. The application is, accordingly, allowed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.