Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that me order of dismissal dated 16th June, 1984 passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, defendant No. 4, was illegal, void and without jurisdiction and also for a decree of reinstatement to the post of Store-keeper and costs of the suit. It may be stated hers that the plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and his heirs have been substituted. In view of the death of the sole plaintiff-appellant, the relief for reinstatement has become infructuous. 2. In view of the short point which arises in this case it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff was working as a store-keeper in Mechanical Division, Kosi Project, and at the relevant time he was grade II Store-keeper. There was certain loss of pump from the More which was enquired into and the preliminary enquiry disclosed the contumacy of the plaintiff. Accordingly for the misconduct, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff. In the departmental proceeding none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Department was cross-examined. After the conclusion of the enquiry the plaintiffs services were terminated on the ground that the charge of delinquency stood proved. He was removed from service on the basis of the said delinquency with effect from 14th January, 1967. The suit was instituted in November, 1971. 3. At the time of admission the substantial question of law framed was whether there has been compliance of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India before passing the order of dismissal. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff-appellant was never intimated that any witness would be examined on behalf of the Department, no witness was examined in his presence nor was he intimated about examination of any witness. Consequently, he could not cross-examine any of the witnesses. The trial court has dealt with this question in paragraph 12 of the judgment and on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence found that the so-called enquiry was in complete violation of the requirements of the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, he could not cross-examine any of the witnesses. The trial court has dealt with this question in paragraph 12 of the judgment and on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence found that the so-called enquiry was in complete violation of the requirements of the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The lower appellate court, however, took the view that there was no denial of such Principles because the plaintiff did not complain at any stage that he wanted to cross-examine the witnesses. Thus the plaintiff did not avail of the opportunity and, therefore, the enquiring officer could not have done anything. Further, according to the appellate court, the plaintiff at no stage of the proceeding having expressed the desire either orally or in writing that he wanted to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the enquiring officer or that he wanted to produce some witnesses in his defence, it could not be said that there was any infraction of principles of natural justice in holding the departmental enquiry. The view of the lower appellate court on this legal aspect is entirely wrong. 4. The fundamental principles of natural justice and/or in fair enquiry demand communication of the charge to the concerned person to allow him to file his reply thereto if the reply is found to be unsatisfactory, to enquire into the charge by appointing an enquiring officer and the enquiring officer thereafter is required to intimate the date of enquiry to the concerned person. The witnesses to be examined by the departmental authority must be examined in presence of the delinquent after giving advance information about the date of examination of such witnesses as also providing an opportunity to cross-examine them. After conclusion of the examination of witnesses, on behalf of the Department, the delinquent staff should be called upon to adduce oral evidence and if, prior to it the person concerned calls for certain paper, that to be supplied to him. If, however, it be inconvenient for the enquiring officer to supply the said paper he should grant inspection thereof. Both parties should also be allowed to file documents in support of their respective case. These are fundamentals of a departmental enquiry. If, however, it be inconvenient for the enquiring officer to supply the said paper he should grant inspection thereof. Both parties should also be allowed to file documents in support of their respective case. These are fundamentals of a departmental enquiry. It is not necessary for the delinquent person to ask the enquiring officer to examine witnesses in his presence and to allow him to cross-examine them as has been observed by the lower appellate court. 5. It may further be pointed out that the breach has been admitted by the enquiring officer himself (vide exhibit 5/(a) of which there is no reference in the judgment of the lower appellate court. This has been noticed by the trial court in paragraph 12. In Exhibit 5/(a) the enquiring officer has clearly admitted that the witnesses were not examined in presence of Shri Pandey, the charged Store-keeper of Mechanical Division, nor did he make such request at any stage or expressed the desire to cross-examine the witnesses. Exhibit 5/(a) was m connection with notice to the advocate given on behalf of the plaintiff. This clearly established that the evidence was conducted behind the back of the delinquent person and the latter was supposed to know about collection of such materials and should have sou motu sought for cross-examining the said witnesses. This is not the law. I therefore, hold that the termination of the service of the plaintiff was in complete breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which entitled the plaintiff to a declaration that the order terminating his services was void ab inatio and it did not exist in the eye of law. The consequent result would be that in spite of the said order the plaintiff continued in the service. 6. The plaintiff died on 13th March, 1983 and in his place his heirs have been subsituted on 18th May, 1983. Since the plaintiff is no more alive, his hens shall only be entitled to all the benefits consequent upon the quashing of the order of dismissal dated 14th January, 1 and 67, till the date of death and/or the date of superannuation whichever is earlier. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200/-. The judgement and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court restored.