JUDGMENT S.B. Sanyal, J. This is an application for quashing Annexure-1 by which the petitioner has been awarded the punishments of (a) censure, (b) withholding of promotion for two years from the date of the order and (c) for the period of suspension he would be entitled to subsistence allowance only. .He was suspended on 1.7.75 while he was working as a Manager of Shitalpur Sugar Mill at Goraul. His suspension, however, was withdrawn on 25.11.78 (Annexure 11). On 20.11.78 he was served with sixteen charges (Annexure-17) which were subsequently withdrawn and charges were framed afresh on 19.9.79, vide Annexure 12. There was a departmental enquiry with regard to the charges. It is said that the departmental enquiry authority found him guilty whereupon the petitioner was awarded the punishments referred to above. For purposes of this case and the point on which I am going to dispose of this writ petition, no further fact is required to be stated. 2. Mr. Ugra Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised many points. One of his points founded upon the averments in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition which impressed is that the departmental enquiry was held in violation not only of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules but also of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the decision arrived at in the said enquiry is void and inoperative. Another important point passed by learned counsel is that under rule 52 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and/or Note 2 to section 2 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules a person found guilty, cannot be given all the punishments enumerated in Rule 49 or under Note 2, aforesaid, as the case may be, since it speaks about giving "any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 49" or under Note 2 to section 2 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 3. Mr. Kamlapati Singh, Government Pleader No.5, in reply to the first point of the petitioner contended that the petitioner now cannot question the irregularities relating to the departmental enquiry. In reply to the second point urged by Mr. Ugra Singh he submitted that the word "any" will include 'some" or "all" 4. 3. Mr. Kamlapati Singh, Government Pleader No.5, in reply to the first point of the petitioner contended that the petitioner now cannot question the irregularities relating to the departmental enquiry. In reply to the second point urged by Mr. Ugra Singh he submitted that the word "any" will include 'some" or "all" 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I feel that I should not decide the second question raised by Mr. Ugra Singh since this petition is bound to succeed on the first point itself. In paragraph 22 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner wanted to examine before the Enquiry Commissioner 14 witnesses in his defence. He gave a list of those witnesses which has been marked as Annexure 13. But the Enquiry commissioner did not allow him to examine the witnesses except one nor he gave any reason as to why he disallowed the prayer of the petitioner for examination of witnesses in his defence. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition it has been stated that the enquiry continued for 4 1/2 years after the order of suspension and it ended in January 1936. Therefore, there no reason why the was enquiry Commissioner was in a hurry to close the enquiry. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition it has been stated that he was not served with a copy of the findings of the departmental enquiry. In order to enable him to file an effective representation and/or in appeal as envisaged in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. But he has learnt that he was found guilty only on three counts out of the reframed charges and if he would have been given the opportunity to examine all his witnesses, he could have disapproved these three charges on which he was found guilty. To this the State has given reply in their counter-affidavit and the stand of the State could be found in paragraphs 23 and 25. I better quote the reply of the State to the aforesaid averments in the writ petition. They are as follows: 23. "That the statements made in paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition relate to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Enquiry and it is stated that he acted within his jurisdiction." "25. That the statements made in paragraph no. I better quote the reply of the State to the aforesaid averments in the writ petition. They are as follows: 23. "That the statements made in paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition relate to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Enquiry and it is stated that he acted within his jurisdiction." "25. That the statements made in paragraph no. 24 of the writ petition are irrelevant in the circumstances that the charges against the writ petitioner are proved in the departmental proceeding." It is manifest from the two paragraphs extracted above that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to examine his witnesses without giving only reason and that out of 13 charges he was found guilty of three charges only It is also established that the petitioner was not given copy of enquiry report in order to enable him to move higher authorities effectively. I find that the petitioner was harping in darkness as to the charge actually stood proved against him from Annexure 19. It appears that his representation has been rejected without assigning proper reasons. It cannot be called a speaking order at all. The two outstanding facts namely, the petitioner was not allowed to examine his witnesses without assigning any reason and the failure of the authorities to supply him a copy of the enquiry report, vitiate the entire departmental proceedings as being violative of the principles of natural justice. The order founded upon such a departmental enquiry must fail as being violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. I, therefore, quash Annexure I as well as Annexure 19 by which his representation and/ or appeal has been dismissed. The application is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.