M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was a Junior Engineer employed by the 5th respondent, Taluk development Board, Gubbi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' ). He was employed since 1-3-1971. The board on 6-3-1976 served a charge- sheet against him in accordance with, the requirements of Rule 29 (2) (a) of the Karnataka Panchayaths and Taluk boards Employees' (Recruitment and conditions: of Service) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). In all five charges were levelled against him. The charges were framed by the Administrator of the Board. The petitioner furnished his explanation to these charges on 22. 3. 76. The, administrative Officer, who was the enquiry and Disciplinary Authority, passed the orders thereon on 28-6-1976. On 24-5-1976, two witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Authority but admittedly, in the absence of the petitioner. However, by his order dated 23-11-1976, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the five charges. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner which came to be disposed of on 23rd Deer. 1976 confirming the order of the disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition to the Divisional Commissioner, bangalore. This Revision, also came to be dismissed by his order dated 9th june, 1977. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision to the Karnataka appellate Tribunal which also came, to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by these four orders enumerated above, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under art. 226 of the Constitution, interalia, contending that the en;tire enquiry was not in accordance with the Rules and that there had been total denial of opportunity for a proper enquiry contemplated under the Rules. The State of Karnataka, the appellate Tribunal, the Deputy commissioner and the Divisional commissioner have also been made respondents in these proceedings. There is no return filed on behalf of the respondents in spite of several opportunities given. The learned Government Advocate, from the records available to him, has submitted that the two witnesses said, to have been examined by the Disciplinary Authority, as earlier mentioned were examined in the absence of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. The learned Government Advocate, from the records available to him, has submitted that the two witnesses said, to have been examined by the Disciplinary Authority, as earlier mentioned were examined in the absence of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. Rule 29 (b) (ii) (a) of the Rules provides for mandatory right to cross examine vitnesses against the officer who is being proceeded against for disciplinary action in which his removal is involved. For convenience sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 is set out in order to understand the mandatory natures of the Rules:"29 (2) (a): A Taluk Board employee may be removed or dismissed) from service by the Taluk board or such other person authorised by the Taluk Board in this behalf; (b): No Taluk Eoard employee shall be removed or dismissed from his office unless- (i) he is intimated in writing stating- (a) the charge or charges agains: him; (b) the evidence on which each charge is based; (c) any other circumstances, which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case, and (ii) he is given an opportunity- (a) to cross-examine the witness against him; (b) to hear in person; and (c) to submit a written statement; provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply where action is to be taken, on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court. "from the above, it is clear that failure to give, opportunity to the accused officer to cross-examine the witnesses would not only be illegal in terms of the statute but also opposed to the well settled principle, of rules of natural justice ). On this count alone, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be struck down and quashed. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it is clear that he has arrived at a finding that the petitioner is guilty of charge No. 3 relating to the submitting and recording of false measurement of the culvert, based on no evidence at all in-asmuch as, neither necessary documents nor witnesses have been examined in that behalf. Since the initial proceedings themselves were defective and opposed to the rules of natural justice, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Since the initial proceedings themselves were defective and opposed to the rules of natural justice, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. It is unnecessary to express any opinion regarding the finding of the Appellate tribunal which on the face of it appears to be correct and it is also unnecessary to specifically strike down that order as that only dealt with the question, of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the impugned orders of the deputy Commissioner, Divisional commissioner and the Disciplinary authority. For the reasons given above, the orders of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are set aside. Liberty, however, is reserved, to the 5th respondent to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law and strictly in accordance with the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings as set out earlier. A writ in the nature of certiorari shall issue quashing the aforementioned orders. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .