JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The Petitioner was serving as a clerk in the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Sri K.C. Chacko, opposite party No. 4 was the Junior Superintendent of the Warehouse. Petitioner took charge of the warehouse from opposite party No. 4 on 2-1-1973 and he continued as such till 3-2-1973 when he handed over charge to opposite party No. 4. Charge reports were made and signed by the Petitioner and opposite party No. 4 when Petitioner had taken charge and also when be handed over charge to opposite party No. 4. While the Petitioner was in charge, he had reported against Sri L. Panda, Choukidar on 8-1-1973 and Sri Panda had been relieved on 16-1-1973 as he was transferred to Baripada. Three weeks after opposite party No. 4 had taken over charge from the Petitioner, opposite party No. 4 made a complaint saying that there was a shortage of 90 to 100 bags of fertiliser and the Petitioner must be held responsible for the same. In his report, opposite party No. 4 stated that Sri L. Panda, the Choukldar told him that the Petitioner had given Sri Panda Rs. 100.00 on 29-1-1973 and with the help of Sri Panda, the Petitioner had sold 45 bags of fertiliser. Out of the said amount of Rs. 100.00 Sri Panda paid Rs. 20-00 to Sri Gouranga Chandra Das who was the choukidar of the owner of the godown. A proceeding was started against the Petitioner for misappropriation of 113 bags of fertiliser and this proceeding was started on the report of the opposite party No. 4 An enquiry was held by opposite party No. 3 and in the said enquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty of the charge levelled against him. Ultimately, the Petitioner has been dismissed from service. This dismissal is challenged in the present writ petition. It is contended that rules of natural justice had been violated in the enquiry inasmuch as the Petitioner had been cross-examined by the enquiring officer prior to the enquiry held by him, the Petitioner was also not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, the enquiring officer utilised materials collected behind the back of the Petitioner and the punishing authority did not apply his mind to the materials on record while passing the final order of dismissal. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of opposite parties. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of opposite parties. it is contended that the Petitioner had misappropriated the fertiliser as he had sold forty-five bags of fertiliser without any authority and the matter was proved by evidence. Rule of natural justice have not been violated in the enquiry. 2. It is not disputed that the Petitioner took charge from opposite party No. 4 of the Warehouse containing fertilisers on 2.1.1973 and he handed over charge to opposite party No. 4 on 3-2-1973. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee. It is not disputed that the State Warehousing Corporation is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, as such, is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 3. Admittedly, opposite party No. 4 handed over charge to the Petitioner on 2-1-1973 (vide Annexure-1). At that time the stock of fertiliser was described by means of bags and as well as quantity in quintals and K.Gs. contained in the bags. The total number included 70 bags which are cut and torn. Admittedly also on 3-2-1973 opposite party No. 4 took charge from the Petitioner as per Annexure-2. The charge-sheet contains the number of bags, the quantity of fertilisers, including 200 bags cut and torn. He also took charge of the Stock Register and the Daily Deposit and Withdrawal Register as well as the Delivery Order File of the Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Society. It is also not disputed that on 8-1-1973 the Petitioner had reported against Sri L. Panda and Sri. Panda had been relieved on 16-1-1973 as he had been directed to join at Baripada. 4. A report was submitted by opposite party No. 4 about three weeks after he had taken charge (Annexure-4). In this report, it was contended that on 22-2-1973 the godown keeper of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society came for re-bagging the fertiliser. While the work was in progress, opposite party No. 4 and the god own keeper of the Society noticed some old bags containing five to ten K.Gs. of fertiliser. They were surprised to find old bags in the stock. Then he asked Sri L. Panda about this fact who said that he had no knowledge of the same. While the work was in progress, opposite party No. 4 and the god own keeper of the Society noticed some old bags containing five to ten K.Gs. of fertiliser. They were surprised to find old bags in the stock. Then he asked Sri L. Panda about this fact who said that he had no knowledge of the same. On the next day also the godownkeeper of the State Markedng Co-operative Society noticed some old bags containing fertiliser. The Choukidar of the owner of the godown told opposite party No. 4 that he had seen one cart containing 23 bags of fertiliser being despatched from the warehouse on 29-1-1974. By verifying the stock register, opposite party no 4 found that there was no despatch from the warehouse on that day. The godown keeper of the owner Sri Gouranga Das informed him that Sri Panda, the Choukidar had offered him Rs. 20-00 asking him not to tell about the sale of forty five bags of fertiliser. Gouranga also told him that one bundle of empty bags was brought by somebody on the morning of 30-1-1973 and asked him to handover the bags to the Petitioner and accordingly Sri Das handed over the bags to the Petitioner and later on he found the same to be forty five in number, Gouranga also said that with the help of some labourers, the Petitioner had put fertiliser into those bags. Immediately thereafter he brought it to the notice of opposite party No. 3 who was camping at Cuttack. Opposite party No. 3 came at 4 p.m. for verification. While the verification was going on, the Secretary and the Accounts Officer of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society came there and learned from their godownkeeper about the shortage. He reported that there was shortage of 113 bags. Though there will be some standardised loss yet it will not be to this extent. As found from the gunny account he found there was shortage of 86 bags. On enquiry from Gouranga and from L. Panda he came to know that on 29-1-1973 the Petitioner had despatched 45 bags of fertiliser. The charge against the Petitioner was that during the period from 2-1-1973 to 3-2.1973 he had sold 45 bags of fertiliser each containing 50 K.Gs. to some outsider and he had misappropriated the same. On enquiry from Gouranga and from L. Panda he came to know that on 29-1-1973 the Petitioner had despatched 45 bags of fertiliser. The charge against the Petitioner was that during the period from 2-1-1973 to 3-2.1973 he had sold 45 bags of fertiliser each containing 50 K.Gs. to some outsider and he had misappropriated the same. The charge was also to the effect that though from the evidence it was found that he had sold 45 bags yet the total shortage noticed was 113 bags each containing 50 K.Gs. and he had misappropriated the aforesaid fertiliser contained in, 113 bags. Opposite party No. 3 was appointed as the enquiring officer. The file containing the proceeding against the Petitioner was produced before us. From the materials available on record it is found that the enquiring officer (opposite party No. 3) conducted the entire enquiry on 3.9-1973. He first put searching questions to the Petitioner then he recorded statements of opposite party No. 4, Sri Panda and Sri Gouranga Das and confronted the Petitioner with others. With this enquiry he submitted his report Annexure-4. The report (Annexure-4) appears to be dated 23.2.1973 but from the file containing the proceeding produced in Court it appears that the report was dated 26-2-1973. There was no report on 23.2.1973. 5. It is contended by Mr. Das, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that rules of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the Petitioner was cross-examined in the beginning before holding any enquiry and he was not given any opportunity for cross-examination nor he was asked if he would like to adduce any evidence in defence. From the order-sheet in the file containing the proceedings produced in Court, it appears that on 3-9-1973 the enquiring officer opposite party No. 3 first of all cross-examined the Petitioner then he examined opposite party No. 3, Sri L. Panda and Sri Gouranga Das and thereafter he got the Petitioner and the witnesses confronted with each other. Undoubtedly, prior to the actual enquiry the Petitioner had submitted his explanation and had denied his complicity in the shortage. He had justified his stand on the ground that opposite party No. 4 had taken charge of the entire stock with the details of bags and the quantify of fertiliser contained in the bags as well as the number of cut and torn bags which is evident from Annexure-2. He had justified his stand on the ground that opposite party No. 4 had taken charge of the entire stock with the details of bags and the quantify of fertiliser contained in the bags as well as the number of cut and torn bags which is evident from Annexure-2. Opposite party No. 4 takes the stand that he had signed Annexure-2 in good faith. This had weighed much with the enquiring officer. But in face of the explanation of the Petitioner denying his liability, the enquiring officer first of all cross-examined the Petitioner. Thereafter he examined opposite-party No. 4. Sri Panda and Sri Das. It appears from the order-sheet dated 3-9-1973 as well as from the Annexure-6 series that after examining these three persons he arranged confrontation between these three witnesses and the Petitioner. From Annexure-6(v), 6(vi) and 6(viii), it appears that the respective witnesses first of all started cross-examining the Petitioner. There is nothing on record that the Petitioner was given chance to cross-examine. Mr. Behura, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, contends that this confrontation should be taken to be the chance of cross-examination given to the Petitioner. This submission can hardly be accepted. It is well settled that though the rules of the Evidence Act applicable to judicial proceeding are not strictly applicable to disciplinary proceeding, yet the principles are to be followed as far as practicable in a criminal case so that it can be evident that there has been fair play and no prejudice has been caused to the delinquent and it can reasonably, be concluded that justice has been properly; done to the delinquent. It is also well settled from the enquiry that it should be apparent that there was no likelihood of prejudice. The enquiring authority, while so acting is not emancipated from the ordinary principles Upon which justice is administered in the country as it has been said, found on its very essence see Frome United Breweries Company v. Keepers of the Peace and Justice 1926 App Cas 605. The Courts have been acting as vigilant sentinels on the qui uive to see that the principles of natural justice are not violated by any such authority. The requirements of natural justice vary according to the provisions and intendment of the particular provisions. The Courts have been acting as vigilant sentinels on the qui uive to see that the principles of natural justice are not violated by any such authority. The requirements of natural justice vary according to the provisions and intendment of the particular provisions. One of the broad principles of natural justice is that the authority cannot make any decision against a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting the allegations made against him. This requires that a person whose civil right is affected must have a reasonable notice of the case he is to meet and, further, to have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence. Even where an action to be taken is administrative in character, the ordinary rule of fair play nevertheless is to be observed. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a particular case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case on the point. The requirements of natural justice cannot as such be reduced to any formula exclusive or inclusive which can have universal application in every kind of enquiry. The considerations for the same are dependent on the subject matter, the nature of enquiry itself, the nature and constitution of the tribunal or authority which holds the enquiry and the rule under which the enquiry is held. The procedure also need not be analogous to the judicial procedure of Courts of justice but would depend upon the subject-matter etc. Relating to the principle to be followed in Domestic enquiry, it has been held in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Another by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court: If an officer himself sees the misconduct of a workman, it is desirable that the enquiry should be left to be held by some other person who does not claim to be an eye-witness of the impugned incident. Domestic enquiries must be conducted honestly and bona fide with a view to determine whether the charge framed against a particular employee is proved or not and so, care must be taken to see that these enquiries do not become empty formalities. Domestic enquiries must be conducted honestly and bona fide with a view to determine whether the charge framed against a particular employee is proved or not and so, care must be taken to see that these enquiries do not become empty formalities. If an officer claims that he had himself seen the misconduct alleged against an employee, in fairness steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. In other words it is desirable that the conduct of domestic enquiries should be left to such officers of the employer who are not likely to import their personal knowledge into the proceedings which they are holding as enquiry officers. It is further necessary to emphasize that in domestic enquiries the employer should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman charged, give an opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the said evidence and then should the workman be asked whether he wants to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. It is not fair that in domestic enquiries against industrial employees the employee should be, at the very commencement of the enquiry closely cross-examined even before any evidence issued against him. In dealing with domestic enquiries held in such industrial matters the fact should be borne in mind that in a large majority of cases, employees are likely to be ignorant and so it is necessary not to expose them to the risk of cross-examination at the very commencement of the domestic enquiry. Mr. Behura, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties contends that in domestic enquiries the enquiring officer can be permitted to err within the limits of his jurisdiction and prejudice from violation of natural justice is to be proved and non-observance of a particular requirement does not cause any prejudice to the Petitioner even if requirements have been violated. Relying on State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh he also contends that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply but all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. This Court has also held in Sashi Bhusan Mohanti Vs. State of Orissa. Relying on State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh he also contends that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply but all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. This Court has also held in Sashi Bhusan Mohanti Vs. State of Orissa. that if the enquiring officer has based his opinion on materials gathered behind the back of the delinquent which has also been taken to be the basis for his conclusion 'in the proceeding, the punishment awarded to the delinquent should be quashed inasmuch as the delinquent had no opportunity to meet such evidence. 6. From the materials available on record as well as from the report submitted by Mr. Chacko (Annexure-4) it is evident that the Petitioner was first of all cross-examined by the enquiring officer opposite party No. 3, then the enquiring officer recorded the evidence of Sri Panda, Sri Das and Sri Chacko. Thereafter, the enquirying officer caused the Petitioner to be asked by the aforesaid three persons. From Annexure-6 series, it appears that each of the aforesaid three persons first of all put questions to the Petitioner and thereafter conversation between them proceeded and the enquiry was concluded in one day and that was the procedure followed in enquiry. It is not a case where the enquirying officer recorded the evidence of the witnesses and then aforesaid opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine them and the Petitioner was asked if he would lead any evidence in defence. The enquiry, as it appears, was done in a haphazard way. To add to this, it is also evident from Annexure-4 that the enquirying officer was present at the time of the detection of the shortage and he looked to the verification and, as such, he was a party to the detection and should not have been the enquirying officer as has been laid down in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Another. He was called by Mr. Chacko and in presence of the Secretary and the Accounts Officer of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society verification was done. This would show that the enquirying officer was also present at the place and time of verification. It further transpires from Annexure-4 that the agent of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society was the person who detected the shortage. Chacko and in presence of the Secretary and the Accounts Officer of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society verification was done. This would show that the enquirying officer was also present at the place and time of verification. It further transpires from Annexure-4 that the agent of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society was the person who detected the shortage. Neither the Secretary, the Accounts Officer nor the Agent of the State Marketing Co-operative Society has been examined by the enquirying officer who ascertained the actual fact of shortage. This aspect of the matter gains importance in view of the admitted position that the stock of fertiliser stored in the godown belongs to the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society and it is the Society who has to say that there was actual shortage. No report of verification by the Agent of the Society, who admittedly made the verification, was produced. From the statement of Mr. Chacko (vide Annexure-6 (iv), it appears that he stated that the re-bagging was done in presence of Mr. Jena, the godownkeeper of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society; when the shortage was discovered. From Annexure-6 (vi), it appears that the Petitioner has stated that the stock balance as on 3-2.1972 tallied with the stock balance when Mr. Chacko took charge of the fertilisers from him and he also asserted that there was no re-bagging because the stock belongs to the Marketing Society and no gunnies had been supplied. From this annexure, it also appears that Mr. Chacko admitted that he counted all the bags except cut and torn bags at the time of taking charge and excepting these 200 cut and torn bags, the rest of the bags were in good condition. This fits in with Annexure-2, the charge report by which Mr. Chacko took charge from the Petitioner. It would thus transpire that when Mr. Chacko took charge from the Petitioner he had counted the bags, the quantity of fertiliser has been mentioned therein and also 200 cut and torn bags were there. These were all chemical fertilisers which are highly hygroscopic and when the bags got torn there is possibility of shortage. This shortage is to be found by the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society to whom the stock belongs and verification was done by the agent of the Co-operative Society. These were all chemical fertilisers which are highly hygroscopic and when the bags got torn there is possibility of shortage. This shortage is to be found by the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society to whom the stock belongs and verification was done by the agent of the Co-operative Society. But nothing was produced to show that the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society found any loss. The report of Mr. Chacko, Annexure-4 shows that there was shortage of about 600 bags and then he came to the conclusion that there was shortage of 113 bags and the Petitioner was charged for shortage of 113 bags. Armexure-2, the charge report admittedly made by Mr. Chacko shows that he took charge of different registers relating to stock and despatch and the file relating to directions and orders of the Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Society. But the enquirying officer did not care to look to there documents in order to ascertain as to what was the actual position on these particular days so as to satisfy himself if the allegations are true or not. These documents have a material bearing on the enquiry according to the circumstances of the case. The enquiry report is to the effect that the Petitioner had sold forty-five bags of chemical fertiliser. Much importance has been attached to the evidence of G.C. Das, the choukidar of owner of the godown who states that he found one day twentythree bags loaded in a cart were despatched by Sri L. Panda and his source of information about this sale is Sri Panda. Admittedly, Sri Panda was not in good book of the Petitioner as the Petitioner had reported against the conduct of Sri. Panda and he bad been relieved from 16th January shortly after the Petitioner had taken over charge of the godown. Curiously enough Sri Panda had not joined his posting at Baripada and was all along at Bhubaneswar till Sri Chacko joined and took charge from the Petitioner. From the evidence of Sri G.C. Das, it appears that Sri Panda told him that "they bad sold 45 bags". This would mean that the Petitioner and Sri Panda had sold forty-five bags but there is no material to show if only Sri Panda was the person to sell it or Petitioner was one of the persons who had joined hands with Sri Panda. This would mean that the Petitioner and Sri Panda had sold forty-five bags but there is no material to show if only Sri Panda was the person to sell it or Petitioner was one of the persons who had joined hands with Sri Panda. This statement of Sri Panda should have been carefully enquired into and examined. Petitioner has been impleaded on the ground that Sri G.C. Das states that he found some old gunny bags being delivered to him by some body (he does not state the name) and that the Petitioner took away those gunnies and subsequently the Petitioner was found filling up those gunny bags with the help of other persons. On this evidence the Petitioner is connected with the shortage of fertilisers. There is no consistency of materials as to how many bags were short. In the godown chemical fertiliser was lying in a heap. The re-bagging was done by the godownkeeper of the State Marketing Cooperative Society. There should have been materials before the enquirying officer as to what is the permissible limit of shortage and how much it had exceeded. Simply re-bagging the fertilisers which were in a heap would not be sufficient to allege shortage and the same is not the legal evidence before the enquirying officer. It is also very strange that Mr. Chacko had signed Annexure-2 relating to the details of the bags and the quantity of fertilisers taken charge by him and when shortage was found three weeks after he had taken charge, he takes the stand that he took charge in good faith and did not count the bags. But from Annexure-6 series, it appears that he has admitted that he counted the bags and excepting 200 torn and cut bags the other bags were intact. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the enquirying officer. Simply relying on the testimony of Sri G.C. Das, the enquirying officer has come to the concision that there was shortage of forty-five bags for which the Petitioner was responsible. Sri G.C. Das states that he had seen twenty-three bags loaded in a cart were despatched from the godown. He does not say that it was the Petitioner who despatched the bags. According to him, it was Sri L. Panda who despatched the bags. He states that Sri Panda offered him Rs. Sri G.C. Das states that he had seen twenty-three bags loaded in a cart were despatched from the godown. He does not say that it was the Petitioner who despatched the bags. According to him, it was Sri L. Panda who despatched the bags. He states that Sri Panda offered him Rs. 20.00 but he did not accept it. Sri Panda, who is admittedly inimical towards the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner had paid him Rs. 100.00 directing to pay Rs. 20.00 to Sri G.C. Das and he paid the same to Sri G.C. Das but considering the evidence of Sri G.C. Das, it transpires that anyone of them is speaking falsehood. The result and effect of such statement would be that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these two witnesses. The enquirying officer has closed his eyes to these aspect. It is not that a small error has been committed. The aforesaid aspects clearly show non-application of mind of the enquirying officer. Such non-application of mind amounts to violation of natural justice and is prejudicial to the Petitioner. The enquirying officer has also stated that the way in which Mr. Chacko states to have taken charge is against the rules. From para (i) of the enquiry -report, it appears that the enquiring officer has stated that either Sri Swain (the Petitioner) had shold another fortyone bags and could not replace the same with empty gunnies or someoneelse disposed of the bags and did not bother for the gunny account. In paragraph 3 of his report, the enquiring officer has passed his conclusion on by on surmises and his personal knowledge. Therein he has stated that Sri Chacko had taken the risk in taking charge and he had violated the rules. Sri G.C. Das has also at one place stated that on the 29th January twentythree bags loaded in a cart were despatched and at another place he states that it was on the 30th. The enquirying officer has also reported that he had verified from the Sub. Inspector of Police that the Petitioner had sold fifteen bags of fertiliser to a hauler owner. Neither the Sub-Inspector of Police nor the hauler owner were examined In the case and the Petitioner was not in a position to cross-examine those persons. This amounts to lack of reasonable opportunity. 7. Inspector of Police that the Petitioner had sold fifteen bags of fertiliser to a hauler owner. Neither the Sub-Inspector of Police nor the hauler owner were examined In the case and the Petitioner was not in a position to cross-examine those persons. This amounts to lack of reasonable opportunity. 7. From the aforesaid materials available on record, it is evident that (1) the enquirying officer was one of the persons present at the time of detection and he was in the position of a witness. (2) The fertilizer belong to the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society. The godownkeeper who detected the shortage as well as the Secretary and Accounts Officer of the society who were present at the time of verification have not been examined. (3) The stock register, the dally deposit and withdrawal rigister, the delivery order file and the despatch register have not been examined to find out actually what was the stock position on those dates and if there were sales or delivery orders by the Marketing Co-operative Society. (4) The records of the Orissa State Marketing Co-operative Society have not been examined if there was, in fact, shortage and if, in fact, the storing agent of the Society had found any gunnies being in short of fertilisers or any old gunnies had been introduced. (5) The Petitioner was first cross-examined before recording evidence of witnesses. (6) The Petitioner was not asked to cross-examine the witnesses, and on the other hand, the witnesses started cross-examining the Petitioner. (7) The Petitioner was not asked if he would adduce any evidence in defence. (8) The entire enquiry was held in one day starting with the cross-examination of the Petitioner, followed by recording evidence of witnesses and the witnesses cross-examining the Petitioner, and (9) the enquiring officer has based his finding on extraneous matters, namely, the report of the investigating officer in the criminal case about, the person to whom the Petitioner is alleged to have sold the fertilisers. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties, relying on Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Others that whatever the findings have been arrived at by the enquirying officer on the materials available before him, the enquiry cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality. The facts and circumstances of that case are completely different from the facts and circumstances arising in the present case. State of West Bengal and Others that whatever the findings have been arrived at by the enquirying officer on the materials available before him, the enquiry cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality. The facts and circumstances of that case are completely different from the facts and circumstances arising in the present case. In that case the delinquent cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and also examined the defence witnesses and the matter was posted for argument and it was adjourned at the request of the delinquent and at a, later stage the delinquent came with a petition for engaging a lawyer. It was a case also in which report of the Vigilance Commissioner was considered but a careful examination would show that the enquiring officer did not base his finding on the report of the Vigilance Commissioner but in the instant case the information received by the enquirying officer from the police investigating officer has been utilised as one of the ingredients for the ultimate findings and has been utilised as an integral part of the grounds which result in the finding of the guilt. Rules of natural justice clearly require an unbiased and fair play. The principles of the case of Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Others are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This matter may, also be considered from a different stand-point. This decision is of a bench consisting of two Judges of the Supreme Court whereas the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Another. is a decision of a bench consisting of three Judges. The Supreme Court has already laid down in Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal, that the formerdecision of a larger bench should be followed. Also in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. K.S. Subramanian the Supreme Court has held that the proper, course for a High Court is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. The Supreme Court has further held that this is a practice followed by the Supreme Court itself and the practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court. In view of this dictum of the Supreme Court the principles laid down in the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. The Supreme Court has further held that this is a practice followed by the Supreme Court itself and the practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court. In view of this dictum of the Supreme Court the principles laid down in the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Another. are to be followed and the evidence and circumstances of this case are to be considered. The application of the principles of natural justice is to be considered according to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. As discussed above, in the present case, the procedure followed for enquiry clearly shows that the rules of natural justice have been violated and these are prejudicial to the delinquent. 8. Even assuming the materials available to the enquirying officer as wen as the findings of the enquirying officer, the result is that on a particular day the Petitioner despatched twenty-three bags of fertiliser in a bullock cart. But he has been charged for misappropriation of 113 bags of fertiliser, including fortyfive bags, of each containing 50 K.Gs. There is no material to show that each bag contains 50 K.Gs. of fertiliser. The stock register, the despatch register and the sale register are important documents to show if on those days there was any sale or not. Nothing has been placed on record to show if the State Marketing Co-operative Society which had stored those fertilisers, had or had not issued any despatch order. None from the Co-operative Society has been examined not the relevant papers of the Co-operative Society were produced. From Annexure-2, it appears that Mr. Chacko had taken charge of a stock register. If these documents would have been produced, then it would have established whether there was any illegal action on the part of the Petitioner. Of course he has denied to have despatched any such fertiliser. Even if that is not accepted, it does not establish that he has misappropriated 113 bags of fertiliser including forty five bags said to have been despatched by him. These broad circumstances are necessary elements for consideration when a person is charged with misappropriation. Simply basing on the testimony of these three persons the enquirying officer has come to the conclusion and has also inferred many things from his personal knowledge which he has utilised in his report. These broad circumstances are necessary elements for consideration when a person is charged with misappropriation. Simply basing on the testimony of these three persons the enquirying officer has come to the conclusion and has also inferred many things from his personal knowledge which he has utilised in his report. He has also utilised information which he gathered from the police investigating agency behind the back of the Petitioner without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to meet that evidence. The way in which the enquirying officer has dealt with the mater appears to be completely perfunctory and not in a proper and justiciable form. In other words, the procedure adopted by him is improper and prejudicial to the Petitioner. He being in the position of a witness to the detection at the time of verification should not have been the enquirying officer. The principles of rules of natural justice is not to be considered in a closed chamber. According to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, it is to be seen whether on the method adopted, and the materials available, one can reasonably' come to such a conclusion. On the aforesaid analysis, it should be held that the enquiry was not according to the rules of natural justice and the Petitioner has been prejudiced. 9. The disciplinary authority, while coming to its own conclusion has to apply its mind and carefully examine the records for arriving at its own conclusion. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the notes made on the file were considered by the disciplinary authority and the final order was passed. As it has been discussed above, the factors which naturally arise in the present case, were not at all taken into consideration even by the disciplinary authority and these factors had a material bearing in the proceeding and it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had properly applied its mind in arriving at its own conclusion. On this ground also, the proceeding is vitiated. 10. In the result, the petition as allowed. The entire proceeding and the order of dismissal of the Petitioner are quashed and he is deemed to be continuing in service and he is entitled to consequential benefits. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. P.K. Mohanti, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed