( 1 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the University of Mysore. In the year 1970, a, committee was constituted by the Syndicate of the University to hold an enquiry into the leakage of certain question papers in the subject of Zoology (Major) of the Final B. Sc. , Degree Examination held in april (May, 1970. The said committee examined twenty-three witnesses and recorded their evidence. On a consideration of the material collected, the committee was of the opinion that a regular departmental enquiry should be held against the petitioner who was working, as the Superintendent in the administration branch of Yuvaraja's College, at the relevant point of time Thereafter, the Registrar of the University was appointed as an enquiry officer, to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. On the basis of the report submitted by the Registrar, the Vice- Chancellor found that the petitioner was guilty of three charges, which had been framed against him, and awarded the punishment of reduction to the grade of Senior Assistant from that of the Superintendent. By another order dt. 18-6-1971, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at the minimum of the scale of Senior Assistant. It was also ordered that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, for a, period of five years, from the date he reported to duty as Senior Assistant. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE principal contention urged by Sri Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the, petitioner, in support of the above writ petition, is that the enquiry held by the Registrar, into the charges framed against the petitioner, is vitiated on the grqund that the principles of natural justice had been violated It is seen from the report of the Registrar that no witnesses were examined in support of the charges in the course of the enquiry held by him The Registrar appears to, have acted on the statements of witnesses recorded by the committee The witnesses were not even produced at the time of the enquiry and made to admit that they had made such statements before the committee. It is, no doubt true that the petitioner was asked whether he would like to cross-examine any of the witnesses who had been examined before the committee But, that in my opinion cannot be considered as affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in the enquirv before the Registrar ( 3 ) IT may not be always necessary to examine a, witness in-chief in the presence of a person against whom an enquiry is being held But as observed by the Supreme Court in state of Mysore v Sivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, AIR. 1965 SC. 375. it would be necessary to call the witness, who has given a prior statement at the time of the enquiry, and to ask him whether he had made such a statement If he affirms that such a statement has been made, then the person against whom disciplinary enquirv is being held, should bo given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness Dealing with the above question the Supreme Court has observed as follows :" But in our opinion, the purpose of an examination in the presence of a party against whom an enquiry is made, is sufficiently achieved, when a witness who has given a prior statement is re-called, that statement is put to him and made known to the opposite party, and the witness is tendered for cross-examination by that party "such a procedure has not admittedly been followed in the instant case. It is, however, relevant to observe at this stage that in a later case, khardah and Co. , Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR. 1964 SC. 719. the Supreme Court has deprecated the procedure of examining a witness behind the back of a person against whom an enquiry is being held, and marking his statement as evidence in the case. The Supreme Court observed : it would be noticed that essential basis on which this view is founded is that the enquirv conducted by the management before a domestic tribunal must be a fair and just enquiry and in bringing home to the workman UK- charge framed against him, principles of natural justice must be obseved Normally, evidence on which the charges are sought to be proved must be led at such an enquiry in the presence of the workman himself. Tt is true that in the case of departmental enquirles held against public servants, this Court has observed in the state of Mysore v. Shirabasappa Shivappa ( AIR 1963 SC 375 ) that if the deposition of"a witness has been recorded by the enquiry officer in the absence of the public servant and a copv thereof is given to him, and an opportunity is given to him to cross-examine the witness after he affirms in a general way the truth of his statement already recorded, that would conform to, the requirements of natural justice; but as has been emphasised by this Court in Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd v. Gangadhar (C. A. Nog. 425 and 426 of 1962, dt. 4-4-1963): ( AIR 1964 SC 708 ) these observations must be applied with caution to enquiries held by domestic Tribunals against the industrial emplyees. In such enquiries, it is desirable that all witnesses on whose testimony the management relies in support of its change against the workman should be examined in his presence. Recording evidence in the presence of the workman concerned starves a, very important purpose. The witness knows that he is giving evidence against a particular individual who is present before him, and therefore, he is cautious in making his statement. Besides, when evidence is recorded in the presence of the accused person, there is no room for persuading the witness to make convenient statements, and it is always easier for an accused person to cross-examine the witness if his evidence is recorded in hia presence. Therefore, we would discourage the idea of recording statements of witnesses ex parte and then producing the witness before the employe concerned for cross-examination after serving him with such previously recorded statements even though the witnesses concerned make a general statement on the latter occasion that their statements already recorded correctly represented what they stated. In our opinion, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, the normal procedure should be followed and all evidence should be recorded in the presence cf the workman who stands charged with the commission of acts constituting misconduct. In our opinion, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, the normal procedure should be followed and all evidence should be recorded in the presence cf the workman who stands charged with the commission of acts constituting misconduct. " ( 4 ) SINCE the Registrar, who held the enquiry into the alleged acta of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner, did not even secure the presence of the witnesses, who had made the, earlier statements on the basis of which he made the report, so that they could generally affirm the truth of the statement they had made. I am of opinion that the enquiry held by the Registrar, is vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice Sri Shivanna,, learned Counsel appearing for the University of Mysore, however, contended that out of the three charges that had been framed against the petitioner, at least with regard to two of them, the petitioner had no defence at all, and therefore the punishment awarded should be upheld. I find it difficult to agres with the submission made by Sri Shivanna. In the instant case, the University has awarded a single punishment in respect of three charges, of which the petitioner had been found guilty On comparison, I find that the first two charges, to which Sri Shivanna referred, are not as grave as the third charge fn respect of which the Registrar held the enquiry Since I have come to the conclusion that the finding regarding the third charge is vitiated, it is not possible to uphold the punishment awarded in this case because it is not known what punishment the Vice-Chancellor would have awarded to the petitioner if he had found the petitioner guilty of only two of the charges, which are comparatively of a minor character. Hence the enquiry proceedings held by the Registrar and the punishment awarded by the -Vice-Chancellor are set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been holding the post of Superintendent continuously from tht date on which he was reverted to the post of senior Assistant. The University is directed to pay all the salary and allowance to which the petitioner would have been entitled to, but for the order which is set aside in this writ petition, minus the salary and allowances already disbursed to him. The University is directed to pay all the salary and allowance to which the petitioner would have been entitled to, but for the order which is set aside in this writ petition, minus the salary and allowances already disbursed to him. The petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. --- *** --- .