Judgment 1. THE writ petition is directed against the orders dated March 15, 1985, March 22, 1985 and April 22, 1986. The said orders are quoted below : order dated 15/3/85 : "whereas after proper and long drawn enquiry and after allowing him sufficient scope for self-defence into the complaint made for tampering of document No. 5866 for 1981 scribed by him and registered ;at Sadat' Joint Sub-Registry Office midanapore, and having been satisfied that he is directly involved in this act of tampering, 1 am the granting authority, hereby cancelling the deed writing licence No. 1296 (Sadar)granted to Sri Dulal Chandra Mandal under the provision of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 20 of West Bengal Registration (Deed-Writers) Rules, 1982. " Order dated 22/3/85 : "with reference to his prayer dated 21/3/85 for reconsideration of cancellation of his licence, he is informed that on a full fledged enquiry conducted by District Sub-Registrar, Midnapore, on allegation of tampering in Deed No. 5866 of 1981 Registered in Sadar Joint Sub-Registry Office, Midnapore, he has been found guilty of directly being involved in the act of tampering. As such, his prayer cannot be considered at this stage. If he feel aggrieved by order of District Registrar, he may appeal to the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal, who has been informed of this action vide this office No: 1163 dated 16/3/85" order dated 22/4/86 : ". . . . . . . . . During hearing of this appeal it has been submitted by Sri Mandal that he did never tamper the document and the interpolation or overwriting appearing in the original document was not made by him. It is true that the authority came to a finding on the point at issue on comparison of the specimen writing of the appellant with the disputed writing appearing on the original Deed and on perusal of the evidence on record. Sri Mandal, dial never take any positive step to refer the matter to a hand writing expert for his opinion in order to substantiate his, contention at any stage during enquiry. I think it is too late for him to take up a plea like this in appeal. It was a departmental proceeding and it appears from the record that the enquiry was conducted on due compliance with the principles of natural justice. I think it is too late for him to take up a plea like this in appeal. It was a departmental proceeding and it appears from the record that the enquiry was conducted on due compliance with the principles of natural justice. I am not, therefore, inclined to make any interference with the finding of the Disciplinary authority on a verbal submission that he was not involved in tampering the document. The incident of tampering of a document by The scribe in collusion with the employees in registration Offices cannot but be held to be a serious offence and the same cannot be lightly disposed of. It can definitely be said to be a case of serious misconduct on the part of Sri Mandal as Deed-Writer. So, on consideration of the facts and circumstances appearing in this case and on careful perusal of the entire record, i do not find any merit calling for my interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. As a result, the appeal fails and the appellant is not entitled to any relief. It is, therefore, ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the Disciplinary authority is hereby confirmed The appeal is thus, disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment along with the case record be sent to the District Registrar, Midnapore. Let another copy of this judgment be sent, to District Registrar, Midnapore for delivery to Sri Mandal for his information. 2. THE facts of the case are, in brief, as follows : - The petitioner at the material time was a licensed Deed Writer at the office of Midnapore Sadar Registry, Midnapore and was working as Deed Writer in the month of November, 1981. As a Deed Writer, the writ petitioner wrote a Deed executed between purchaser namely, Ganesh chandra Bhowmick and there seller namely, Bishnu Pada Kar, Durga Pada kar, Balai Lal Kar of a plot of land demarcated in the Plan. The owner sold a portion of the land to the purchaser out of a large lot by dividing the plot. The execution" of the Deed was made on 23rd November, 1981 between the parties which was numbered as 5866 of 1981. The owner sold a portion of the land to the purchaser out of a large lot by dividing the plot. The execution" of the Deed was made on 23rd November, 1981 between the parties which was numbered as 5866 of 1981. After the writing of the Deed was over, the writ petitioner duly handed over the same to the party concerned and after that the said deed was duly placed for registration on the date mentioned above. After lapse of four years, the writ petitioner received a show cause notice dated February 6, 1985. The said show cause notice is set out below :- "whereas from the statement and deposition taken from the persons and employees concerned" and also from the verification of handwriting in respect of figures 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Bengali found interpolated in the document No. 5866 for 1981, the original of which was written by you and figures got written by you before the District Registrar during investigation, it appears that you are directly involved in the act of tampering, you are called upon the explain why disciplinary action will not be taken against you for unlawful activity and criminal breach of trust. The explanation much reach the undersigned within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice. Given under my hand and seal on this 5th day of February, 1985." 3. AFTER receipt of the said show cause notice, the writ petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice by a letter dated February 11, 1985. The said letter is quoted below : - "I am quite innocent and I am not aware of any alleged interpolation in the document No. 5866 for 1981 as alleged in your above notice and I did not interpolate any thing in the said document. I further beg to state that 1 should not be held directly or in any way involved in the alleged act of tampering for the alleged reasons. I have not committed any unlawful activity and/or criminal breach of trust as alleged in your notice. . . . . . " 4. BY the said letter, the writ petitioner pointed out that neither the copies of the statements or depositions taken from" the persons and employees concerned as stated in the above notice were supplied to him along with the said show cause notice. . . . . . " 4. BY the said letter, the writ petitioner pointed out that neither the copies of the statements or depositions taken from" the persons and employees concerned as stated in the above notice were supplied to him along with the said show cause notice. The writ petitioner further pointed out that he would submit his additional explanation after receipt of the copies of the statements and depositions referred to in the said, notice. Mr. K. L. Chakraborty, the District Sub Registrar, Midnapore, the enquiring officer recorded without dealing with the basic grievances raised by the writ petitioner. This application dated' February 11, 19s5 replied under cover of a Memorandum No, 693 dated February 11, 1985 to the following effect :- "How is it that the scribe of the document states that he is not aware of any alleged interpolation? How he says it "alleged" when he admitted during cross-examination before district Registrar on 16/1/85 that it had been a clear case of interpolation? How does he contradict his own statement however, a written statement filed by Haripada Chowdhury, muharrir, Sadar joint 'sub-Registration Office, Midnapore, which has bearing to this connection is supplied to him." 5. BY an order dated March 15, 1985, the District Registrar cancelled the licence of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner after receipt of the said order dated March 15, 1985 submitted his written prayer- for reconsideration of the cancellation of the licence. The said District Registrar by Memorandum No. 1279 dated March 22, 1985 informed the writ petitioner that on a full fledged enquiry conducted by the. District Sub-Registrar, Midnapore on allegation of tampering in Deed No. 5866 registered in Sadar joint Sub-Registry Office, Midnapore, he had been found guilty of directly involved in the act of tampering and such, his prayer could not be considered at this stage. However, the writ petitioner was informed that when he was otherwise aggrieved by order of the District Registrar, he might prefer an appeal to the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. 6. DURING the course of hearing, Sri Soumitra Dasgupta, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent produced the xerox copies of the order sheets along with certain documents. It would appear that the complaint was lodged with the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. 6. DURING the course of hearing, Sri Soumitra Dasgupta, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent produced the xerox copies of the order sheets along with certain documents. It would appear that the complaint was lodged with the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal. The said complaint is dated November 23, 1984. The said complaint is quoted below :- "on 23/11/81 the above named petitioner purchased a property from Sri Bishnu Pada Kar and Others vide Regd. deed No. 5866 Volume 92, block - I pages 76 to 81 for the yean, 1981 in the Sadar Joint Sub-Registrar office, Midnapore. That on 24/2/83 this petitioner applied for certified copy of the said original deed and the same was delivered to this petitioner on 25/2/83 and the original deed was delivered on 22/11/84. That on comparison of the original deed with the certified copy, the petitioner found that there is some addition of figures 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 after the word "passage" in the original deed. That this was detected by the petitioner on comparison of this original and the certified copy side by side. That on 23/11/84 the petitioner applied for column search and there he found the same figures was a little above in red ink with no signature of the Copyist concerned. That it is clear from the situation and circumstances that some interested person has done this manipulation and subsequent addition of those figures in the original deed with the connivance and collusion of the staff, in between the period of taking certified copy and entry of the deed in the volume. That this addition of figures in the original deed, which was not present at the time of exception and presentation on the deed, has caused great injury and damage to mis-petitioner. Therefore, the humble prayer before your honour is that necessary steps may kindly be taken to afford the remedy and justice for this manipulation and subsequent addition to the petitioner at an early date and for which" act of kindness this petitioner shall ever pray." The writ petitioner was not given a copy of the said complaint. Thereafter, the District Registrar recorded a confidential note dated December 14, 1984, which is quoted below :- "seen enquiry reports of Jt. S. . R. Midnapore. Thereafter, the District Registrar recorded a confidential note dated December 14, 1984, which is quoted below :- "seen enquiry reports of Jt. S. . R. Midnapore. Statements of employees concerned and also partial findings of the issue. D. S. R. to pi. process through it and support next actions in the matter in confirmation with Government Employee conduct Rules, 1980 and Deed-Writer Rules, 1982. He is made an Enquiring Officer in this matter and regular proceedings to be started. " 7. COPY of the Note dated December 14, 1984 was also not made available to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, a fact finding enquiry into the tampering of the documents was held. Such enquiry formed the basis of the cancellation of the licence of the writ petitioner. The concerned officer who held the preliminary enquiry sent the report to the District registrar, Midnapore. The said report was not made available to the writ petitioner although detailed findings were reached by the Officer who held the fact finding enquiry. 8. VARIOUS documents were also filed. Copies of the said documents excepting one as referred to in a letter dated February 4, 1985 were not made available to the writ petitioner. The District Sub- 'registrar during the course of the enquiry as far hack as on December 26, 1984, inter alia, recorded as follows : - ". . . . . . . . Question of imposing some sort of punishment on Sri Chowdhury may be taken up if he fails to explain his queer behaviour and also how far he is involved in this matter. Scribe Sri Dulail Mandal will be interrogated after jt. S. R. obtains a categorical statement from Sri Dilip Bose as above." All these findings by the concerned District Sub Registrar-were reached before the issue of tie Show Cause Notice. The hand-writing of the writ petitioner was obtained on January 16, 1985. The District-Sub Registrar before issue of the Show Cause Notice effected the final processing of the case. 9. AFTER such final process of the case, Mr. K. L. Chakraborty, district Sub Registrar issued the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, duly enquired into the matter and arrived at his findings. By the said findings dated January 19, 1985 Sub-Registrar recorded that the licence of the writ petitioner be cancelled after drawing up the proceedings. Thereafter, he issued the Show Cause Notice. K. L. Chakraborty, district Sub Registrar issued the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, duly enquired into the matter and arrived at his findings. By the said findings dated January 19, 1985 Sub-Registrar recorded that the licence of the writ petitioner be cancelled after drawing up the proceedings. Thereafter, he issued the Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice referred to the statement and deposition "taken from the persons and employees and also the verification of hand-writing into figures 2, 6, 7, 8 and. 9 in Bengali. The writ petitioner duly asked for the copies of the documents as referred to in the Notice. The writ petitioner by his letter dated February 22, 1985 informed the District Sub-Registrar to the following effect :- To The District Sub Registrar, Midnapore . Additional explanation Ref. Your Memorandum No. 693 dt . 13/2/85 & your Notice No. 541 dt . 6/2/85 Sir, With reference to above, I humbly beg to state that the copies of the written statements submitted by Haripada Chowdhury dt . 16/11/84 and dt . 28/12/84 as stated in the copies of the petitions of Haripada Chowdhury dt . 3/12/84 and dt . 15/1/85 respectively have not been supplied to me along with your above Memorandum and as such I am unable to submit proper explanation. I am quite innocent. Said Haripada Chowdhury made contradictory statements in his written petitions on various dates. The contentions of the above petitions submitted by the said Haripada Chowdhury are false, purposeful, motivated and are nothing but his self saving statements. I did not want to peruse the deed in question as alleged by Haripada Chowdhury. I did not see the deed as stated by said Haripada Chowdhury in his above petitions. On 16/11/84 before or at or about 9. a. m. I did' not enter into the Registry Office and I came out of the Registry Office as stated by said Haripada Chowdhury in his statement dt. 3/12/84. Submitted for your kind consideration. " 10. MR. Kunja Lal Chankraborty, District Sub Registrar after receiving the explanation from the petitioner recorded an exparte finding on 25/2/85, inter alia, to the following effect :- "Haripada Chowdhury has worked up a strong implicating him. I think that is a fact. 3/12/84. Submitted for your kind consideration. " 10. MR. Kunja Lal Chankraborty, District Sub Registrar after receiving the explanation from the petitioner recorded an exparte finding on 25/2/85, inter alia, to the following effect :- "Haripada Chowdhury has worked up a strong implicating him. I think that is a fact. Even if that can be brushed aside as being a funny story, how is it the figures appearing in the schedule of the document and those written down by him before district Registrar and District Sub Registrar at the time of enquiry are exactly similar there is no doubt that he is involved in the nefarious business. His licence should be suspended." The said District Sub Registrar further recorded on the same date that the complainant, Ganesh Chandra Bhowmick, should be informed that his complaint has been enquired into and proper action taken. A certificate to that effect that the figures 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 after word "passage" are found to be interpolated, has been appended in its proper place, 11. BEFORE the completion of proceeding and/or decision of the authority to cancel the licence of the petitioner, the District Registrar, midnapore behind the back of the petitioner by Memo dated. February 28, 1985 informed the complainant, Ganesh Chandra Bhowmick that the matter was duly enquired into by the District Sub Registrar, Midnapore who was appointed as an Enquiring Officer and on his enquiry it was revealed that there was tampering in the deed by interpolation of figures 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 after the word "passage". This fact of interpolation amounting to tampering thus recorded was referred to in the petition filed by Sri Bhowmick. The District Registrar also forwarded a copy of memo No. 932/1 dated February 28, 1985 to the Inspector General of Registration, west Bengal with reference to Registration Directorate Office Memo dated November 28, 1984. It has also been stated therein that the follow-up action along with original petition of the complaint would be reported in due course. 12. WHILE dealing with the case of Sri Haripada Chowdhury and Sri D. K. Basu, the District Registrar before the issue of the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner reached his clearest finding on march 13, 1985 in the proceeding against the petitioner before the order cancelling the licence was issued. 12. WHILE dealing with the case of Sri Haripada Chowdhury and Sri D. K. Basu, the District Registrar before the issue of the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner reached his clearest finding on march 13, 1985 in the proceeding against the petitioner before the order cancelling the licence was issued. The said findings reached by the District sub Registrar is quoted below :- "as to Sri Dulal Chandra Mondal, the scribe it has definitely been found that he is the main person involved in the tampering and with direct or indirect help of other accomplices in the case, he has interpolated the figures found in the deed and register as the figures tally with his hand-writing taken in my presence. Moreover, there is other allegations against his conduct in matter of Sri Bijoy Marik whose stamps he snatched and destroyed in an earlier complaint. As conduct of such a deed-writer is harmful to the prestige of the department as well as safety of public documents, the licence of such deed writer should nor be allowed to be retained and should immediately be cancelled under Rule 20 (3) of the W. B. R. (D. W.) Rules, 1982 as regular proceedings has been drawn against him on framing charges and allowing him to defend himself and his statements recorded. " On 14th March, 1985 the District Sub Registrar approved the suggestions made for taking necessary actions against the employee involve in the act of tampering. The suggestions thus, placed are indicated below: "1) H. C. will please put up proposal for transfer of Sir Dilip Kumar Bose, Muharrire Jt. S. R. O., Midnapore to some other Office on administrative ground. 2) Orders for stopping one yearly increment of Sri Haripada chowdhury may issue. Draft order is put up. 3) Licence No. 1296 (Mid) granted to Sri Dulal Chandra Monda the Scribe may be cancelled. Draft order is put up." 13. ON the same date, District Registrar made the following endorsements :- "Seen. Approved Draft order signed. H/c to put up this for proposal of Sri Dilip Kumar Basu immediately." 14. ON March 15, 1985 District Registrar cancelled the Deed writing Licence No. 1296 of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 20 (3) of the West Bengal registration (Deed-Writers) Rules, 1982. Approved Draft order signed. H/c to put up this for proposal of Sri Dilip Kumar Basu immediately." 14. ON March 15, 1985 District Registrar cancelled the Deed writing Licence No. 1296 of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 20 (3) of the West Bengal registration (Deed-Writers) Rules, 1982. District Registrar by another Memo No. 1163 dated Marc 16, 1985 informed the Inspector General of Registration West Bengal to the following effect :- "that the allegation in the petition was duly enquired in by Sri Kunjalal Chakraborty, District Sub Registrar, Midnapor who was appointed as Inquiring Officer in the matter. That the complaint of tampering into the deed has bee confirmed. That on basis of enquiry formal charges were framed against 1) Sri Dulal Chandra Mondal, licensed deed-writer of Sada registration Office, Midnapore. 2) Sri Haripada Chowdhury and 3) Sri Dilip Kumar Basu, muharrire of Sadar Joint Sub Registry Office, who were give reasonable opportunity to defend them. But they have bee found to be involved knowingly or unknowingly in above tan pering case. That as per gravity of involvement, the licence of the deed writer, Sri Mandal has been cancelled, one yearly increment has been stopped in case of Sri Haripada Chowdhury and Sri dilip Kumar Basu has been transferred to Narayangarh Sub registry Office on administrative ground. " 15. THE petitioner on 21st March, 1985 made a prayer before the District Registrar' that the decision of cancellation of his deed writer licence be reconsidered as the petitioner was innocent of the charge and he was not at all involved in the matter,, 16. ON the same date i.e. on 21st March, 1985 the District Registrar passed the following orders :- "Seen prayer for reconsideration of cancellation of licence of Sri Dulal Chandra Mandal. A full fledged enquiry has been conducted by the District Registrar, Midnapore, who has been made the Inquiring officer into the allegation of tampering in Deed No. 5866 of 1981 registered in Sadar Jt. S. R. Office. Sri Mandal was given ample and reasonable opportunity to excoriate himself from the charge framed. On that enquiry he has been found directly involved in the act of tampering and he has been awarded punishment under Deed-Writers Rules, 1982 for cancellation of his licence for misconduct. As such, his prayer cannot be considered at this stage. S. R. Office. Sri Mandal was given ample and reasonable opportunity to excoriate himself from the charge framed. On that enquiry he has been found directly involved in the act of tampering and he has been awarded punishment under Deed-Writers Rules, 1982 for cancellation of his licence for misconduct. As such, his prayer cannot be considered at this stage. If he feels aggrieved by order of D. R., he may appeal to Inspector' General of Registration, West Bengal. The deed- writer' may be informed accordingly. H/c to put up draft accordingly." On 22nd March, 1985 the petitioner prayed for the copies of the following documents :- "1) Rules regarding granting licence and cancellation of the same; 2) Procedural rules (from which it can be gathered that who is the authority regarding initiation of proceedings) about authorisation? 3) Whole order sheet (if any) regarding the present proceedings about tampering document No. 5866 of 1981 of Sadar Joint s. R. O; 4) Copy of application filed by Ganesh Bhowmick; 5) Copy of statement which given by me before authorities; 6) Licence No. 1296 of Midnapore Sadar" 17. MR. Rabindra Mitra, the learned Cousnel appearing in support of the writ petitioner, claimed and contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 6th February, 1985, order dated I5th March, 1985, Memorandum dated 22nd March,-1985 and the appellate order dated 22nd April, 1986 are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction a the entire proceding was vitiated by non-supply of the copies of the statement and deposition taken from the persons and the employees as referred to in the Show Cause notice. The aforesaid non-supply seriously prejudiced the right of the petitioner to defend his case / in conformity with the provisions of natural and procedural justice. 18. MR. Mitra submitted that the entire proceeding, right from the issue of the Show Cause Notice dated 6th February, 1985, the order dated' 15th March, 1985 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd April, f'986 could not be sustained by reason of exparte finding of the concerned authorities before the issue of the Show Cause Notice and before the issue of the order of cancellation of licence. Mr. Mitra further submitted that before the issue of the Show cause Notice dated 6th February, 1985 the District Sub Registrar reached the finding that the licence of the petitioner be cancelled. It has further been claimed and contended by Mr. Mr. Mitra further submitted that before the issue of the Show cause Notice dated 6th February, 1985 the District Sub Registrar reached the finding that the licence of the petitioner be cancelled. It has further been claimed and contended by Mr. Mitra that the proceeding- was vitiated by reason of the failure of the authorities to allow the petitioner to examine the persons and/or employees whose statement and deposition found place in the Show Cause Notice. 19. IT is also claimed by Mr. Mitra that the entire proceeding was vitiated by complete lack of fairness and/or fair play in action on the part of the respondents. 20. MR. Mitra also submitted that the Appellate Authority, namely, inspector General of Registration rendered himself incompetent to hear the appeal on the ground that before hearing of the appeal District Registrar, Midnapore duly informed him the entire facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the decision of the authority to cancel the deed-writer licence of the petitioner. The Inspector General of Registration was fully apprised of the factual aspects of the matter and the decision intended to be taken by the District Registrar, Midnapore. Inspector General of Registration having been duly apprised of the fact finding enquiry and the steps intended to be taken by the concerned District Registrar, Midnapore, should not have acted as an Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority ought to have acted fairly, independently and without any pre- conceived notion having due regard to the doctrine of fairness. Mr. Mitra while advancing his submission, on the doctrine of fairness claimed and contended that during, the pendency of the proceedings before the District Sub Registrar, the District Registrar recorded his firm conclusion as to the alleged guilt of the petitioner and also brought the entire matter to the notice of the Appellate Authority namely, the Inspector general of Registration. The District Registrar and also the District sub-Registrar went on recording exparte findings with but giving the petitioner copies of the said findings as would appear from the order recorded by the District Sub Registrar on February 25, 1985, and also the findings reached by the District Registrar on March 13 and 14, 1985 respectively. 21. The District Registrar and also the District sub-Registrar went on recording exparte findings with but giving the petitioner copies of the said findings as would appear from the order recorded by the District Sub Registrar on February 25, 1985, and also the findings reached by the District Registrar on March 13 and 14, 1985 respectively. 21. APART from that, the District Registrar before passing the order of cancellation of the deed-writer licence of the petitioner expressed his clear, firm conclusion as would appear from Memo No. 932 dated February 28, 1985. Mr. Mitra further seriously assailed the proceedings by challenging the findings reached by the District Sub Registrar as far back as on January 19, 1985 when he definitely came to the conclusion that "it has been proved beyond doubt that the scribe Sri Dulal Chandra mondal, who wrote the documents is directly involved in the matter of interpolation. " This is clear on a comparative study of the figures interpolated. The action of the Appellate Authority was also challenged by Mr. Mitra on the ground that the Appellate Authority before the passing of the order dated March 15, 1985 was duly cognizant of the decision taken by the District Registrar. The District Sub Registrar has 'and had no power, competence and authority, as put forward by Mr. Mitra to pass an order that his licence may be cancelled after drawing up the proceedings of the power. Such power was reserve to D. K. Ghose, the district Registrar. Mr. Mitra in support of his contention as regards non-supply of documents referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the following cases :- 1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Wasai payan, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 2. Trilok Nath v. Union of. India reported' in 1967 SLR 759. 3. State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram reported in AIR 1974 SC2335. 4. Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Sharif reported in AIR 1982 sc 937 . 22. AS regards the doctrine of fairness, Mr. Mitra referred to the judgment in case of the decision in Re : H. K. (an Infant) reported in 1967 QBD 617, in support of his contention that the proceedings having involved civil consequences the respondents are required to act in conformity with the basic concept of justice and fairplay. Mr. 22. AS regards the doctrine of fairness, Mr. Mitra referred to the judgment in case of the decision in Re : H. K. (an Infant) reported in 1967 QBD 617, in support of his contention that the proceedings having involved civil consequences the respondents are required to act in conformity with the basic concept of justice and fairplay. Mr. Mitra also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 . In support of his contention that the proceedings are vitiated by the total absence of fairness, Mr. Mitra submitted that the emergence of new grounds for judicial review namely, irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety are attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. The entire proceedings, according to Mr. Mitra, are vitiated by irrationality illegality and procedural impropriety. Mr. Mitra further made his submission by contending, inter alia, that the non-disclosure of the materials constituted incurable infirmity in the proceedings while become void. In support of his contention as regards the non-disclosure of 'the materials, Mr. Mitra referred to the judgment of- the Supreme Court in the case of Sinha Govindji v. Deputy chief Controller of Imports reported in (il962)1 SCJ 93; Brajlal Manilal and Co. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 1643 and North Bihar agency v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1981 SC 1758 . It is also claimed by Mr. Mitra that the respondents, in particular. District Registrar and district Sub Registrar ought to have been given copies of the evidence produced by the persons and/or employee's to the petitioner. Mr. Mitra also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in air 1955 SC 65 . Mr. Soumitra Dasgupta, the learned, advocate appearing for the respondents, claimed and contended that this writ application ought not to have been entertained on such grounds as are urged by Mr. Mitra. It is claimed by Mr. Dasgupta that the petitioner failed and neglected to cross-examine the witnesses depositions against him at all and the said witnesses were examined before him. Since the witnesses were examined before the petitioner, the question of supplying the documents did not at all arise. It is urged by Mr. Mitra. It is claimed by Mr. Dasgupta that the petitioner failed and neglected to cross-examine the witnesses depositions against him at all and the said witnesses were examined before him. Since the witnesses were examined before the petitioner, the question of supplying the documents did not at all arise. It is urged by Mr. Dasgupta that the charge was borne against the petitioner after proper investigation on adequate legal evidence by the Inquiring Officer himself and it is also seriously contended by Mr. Dasgupta that the petitioner did not take any steps for cross-examination of the witnesses despite the opportunity being given to him. Further, it is claimed by Mr. Dasgupta that the petitioner did not take any step by referring the matter to the hand writing experts. 23. MR. Dasgupta further referred to various paragraphs of the affidavit in Opposition for the purpose of justifying his submissions that from the report of the District Sub Registrar, Midnapore and the District registrar, Midnapore, it appears that the petitioner was found guilty of the charge framed against him. The District Registrar being duly satisfied came to the findings that tampering of the records was made by the petitioner and as such, he cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, according to Mr. Dasgupta, was without any foundation as the petitioner was given opportunity of defence and thereafter, the District registrar cancelled the licence of the Deed-writing in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of the West Bengal Registration (Deed-Writers) Rules, 1982. Mr. Mitra in his reply claimed that the records of the case, thus, produced by Mr. Dasgupta does not show that the petitioner was informed at any stage of the proceedings' that the witnesses would be produced and he would be required to examine or cross examine them. It is also pointed out by Mr. Mitra that no Memo and order was issued by the Inquiring Officer that the petitioner was required to appear on a certain date for the purpose of examination of the witnesses. 24. MR. Mitra urged that the question of examination or cross examination of the witnesses could not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner was not given copies of the statements and depositions of the persons and employees as referred to the Show Cause Notice. 24. MR. Mitra urged that the question of examination or cross examination of the witnesses could not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner was not given copies of the statements and depositions of the persons and employees as referred to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the plea of Mr. Dasgupta, according to Mr. Mitra, is without any basis or at all. Before the question is gone into, it is appropriate for the Court to refer to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the said Rule which is quoted below :- "The District Registrar shall cancel the licence of a deed-writer after a regular proceedings. In such a proceeding generally charge should be formally framed. Copy of the charge made over to the deed-writer concerned, evidence recorded in his presence, adequate opportunity allowed to him to defend himself by adducing witnesses and finally, there should be written orders with appropriate reasons. A deed-writer aggrieved b any order of the District Registrar cancelling his licence ma prefer an appeal to the Inspector General of Registration within sixty days of the date of order." It is now proper for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of, this case and the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. As regards the non-supply of the statements and depositions of the persons and employees as referred to in the Show Cause notice, I am of the view that Mr. Dasgupta did not deny the basic grievance of the petitioner for supply "of the documents that the petition was not accorded the inspection nor the supply of the said statement and depositions of the persons and employees. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner was not accorded the inspection of the documents nor was he supplied the copies of the documents as prayer for by him in the letter dated February 11, 1985. The decision cited Mr. Mitra as regards the inspection of the documents, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Wasaipayan (supra), in my view, applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. 25. The decision cited Mr. Mitra as regards the inspection of the documents, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Wasaipayan (supra), in my view, applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. 25. THE District Sub Registrar, in my view, was required to give the petitioner the copies of the documents namely, the statements and deposition of witnesses as referred to in the' Show Cause Notice and then by, failure of the respondents to do so violated the principle of natural justice. The law of procedures is grounded on principle of natural justice which requires that- man should not be condemned unheard, that decision should not be reached behind his back, that proceedings that affect his life and property should not continue in his absence and that he should not be precluded from participating in the proceedings. The general principle is that an adjudicatory body is to decide the matter on the basis of materials placed before it in the course of proceedings. It cannot take extraneous matters into consideration, nor 'can it base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been given an opportunity to rebut or explain the same. If the adjudicator is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for basing his decision against the individual, then the same must be placed before him for his comments and rebuttal. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no materials should be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity of explaining the same. The right to know the materials on which the Authority is going to take a decision is a part of the right to defend oneself. The principle can be seen operating in the judicial pronouncements where non disclosure of the evidence to the affected party has been held to be fatal to the hearing proceedings. 26. APART from above, natural justice is infringed if an adjudicatory body decides the matter on the basis of enquiry unknown to the party concerned. On a careful scrutiny of the records, it appears that the petitioner was not also informed of the decision of the District Sub Registrar as contained in the letter dated January 19, 1985 nor was he given opportunity of knowing the decision. On a careful scrutiny of the records, it appears that the petitioner was not also informed of the decision of the District Sub Registrar as contained in the letter dated January 19, 1985 nor was he given opportunity of knowing the decision. He was not given copy of the preliminary enquiry report as would appear from the records produced by Mr. Dasguptanor was he given an inspection of the orders passed by Sri Kunjalal Chakrabortyon February 25, 1985. The orders passed by the District Registrar on March 13 and 14, 1985 were not supplied to the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Mitra, in my view has much force in it In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, case reported in AIR 1955 SC 65 the Supreme Court regarded it as a violation of natural justice when the Income Tax Appellate tribunal did not disclose to The assessee the information which had been supplied against him by the departmental representative. While disposing of a review application under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, from a decision of the State Government rejecting the application of the appellant for a mining licence, the Government of India asked for a report from the State Government and entered into correspondence with it regarding the merits of the appellant's application, it then rejected the application. On being asked to give him a copy of the report of State Government, the Central Government refused to do so. The Court quashed the order of the Government of India holding that the appellant was not informed of the report and the Government could not act on the basis of materials against which the appellant had no opportunity to make his representation. If the Central Government was considering the report of the State Government which made any point against the appellant's representations, then in fairness, the appellant was entitled to point out how far they militated against the contention raised by him. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was reached in the case of Brajlal Manila and Co. v., Union of India (supra. 27. MR, Dasgupta's contention is that the writ application ought not to have been entertained on such grounds as are urged by Mr. Mitra, in my view, is without any substance. Non-supply of the basic and foundational documents as referred to in the letter dated February 11, 1985 constitutes incurable infirmity. v., Union of India (supra. 27. MR, Dasgupta's contention is that the writ application ought not to have been entertained on such grounds as are urged by Mr. Mitra, in my view, is without any substance. Non-supply of the basic and foundational documents as referred to in the letter dated February 11, 1985 constitutes incurable infirmity. Both the District Registrar and the District sub Registrar proceeded on the basis of the statements and depositions of the person and employees. The petitioner made his grievance about non-supply of the said statements and depositions of the witnesses. The right to know the materials on which the authority is going to take a decision is a valuable right and the said right is a part of the right to defend oneself. Not only the respondents should have disclosed the relevant materials which the authorities desired to rely on they should have given the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the materials. The giving of such an opportunity included the right of cross - examination of the person or employees tendering evidence, whether oral or documentary. 28. THE plea of Mr. Dasgupta is that the petitioner did not take the opportunity of examining the witnesses. Such plea of Mr. Dasgupta does, not stand a moment's scrutiny for the simple reason that right could not have been exercised by the petitioner in the absence of non-supply of the basic and foundational documents as referred to in the letter dated February 11, 1985. The proceedings, as is indicated above, seeking to affect the livelihood of the petitioner should have been commenced, continued and concluded by observing he fundamentals of justice and fairness. That right, in my view, was whittled down by the Respondents in not allowing the petitioner to have an adequate opportunity. Effect of failure of natural justice is that the order affecting the party becomes void. The defect of failure of natural justice cannot be cured later by the same body or higher body. Rules of natural justice being embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, breach of the rules of natural justice renders the order violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decisions in the case of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman sadashiva Wasaipayan (supra) : State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram (supra)and Trilok Nath v. Union of India (supra) cited by Mr. The decisions in the case of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman sadashiva Wasaipayan (supra) : State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram (supra)and Trilok Nath v. Union of India (supra) cited by Mr. Mitra fully apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Before initiating the normal proceedings against the petitioner a preliminary enquiry was held. The said preliminary enquiry report and the documents formed the basis of the entire proceedings. Refusal of the authority to accord the inspection and/or supply of the said documents and the records of the enquiry proceedings rendered the entire proceeding void. District Registrar during the pendency of the proceedings forwarded all the foundational documents together with the decisions to be taken by the Authority to the Inspector general of Registration. The petitioner- was not aware of any such correspondence and the transmission of the records to the Appellate Authority, at any point of time. The records, in my view, disclosed the most startling farts. It is shocking that the District Registrar during the pendency of the proceedings went on making exparte findings against the petitioner and other employees and could reach his firm conclusion. In such situation, holding of the proceedings, in my view, cannot even be called the pretence of the holding of the enquiry, it was worse than that. The decisions cited by Mr. Mitra as indicated above relates to non-supply of preliminary enquiry report and the statements obtained from the concerned persons and employees during the stage of preliminary enquiry. Supreme Court held that non-supply of the preliminary enquiry constitutes breach of the rules of natural justice. 29. THE next challenge of Mr. Mitra is that the enquiry was vitiated by the total absence of fairness. I am of the view that fairness means that there should be openness, impartiality and adherance to the procedural safeguards. The power to decide the matter is vested in the adjudicatory authority. The Rule 20 (3) of the said Rules will be wholly illusory and meaningless if the concerned authority is allowed to conduct the enquiry without affording an adequate opportunity. 30. HERE, the petitioner was not given copies of the statements and depositions of the witnesses, nor was he given adequate opportunity to defend himself by adducing evidences. The Rule 20 (3) of the said Rules will be wholly illusory and meaningless if the concerned authority is allowed to conduct the enquiry without affording an adequate opportunity. 30. HERE, the petitioner was not given copies of the statements and depositions of the witnesses, nor was he given adequate opportunity to defend himself by adducing evidences. Failure to observe the fundamentals of justice and fairness in the facts of the case cannot but be construed as an action of the authority in giving a complete go-bye to the doctrine of the fairness and thereby, openness, impartiality and adherance to the basic concept of and alterem partem were utterly violated. The mode and manner in which the proceedings, including the preliminary enquiry, commenced, continued and concluded demonstrates that the conduct of hearing suffered from the vice of incurable infirmities which crept in the proceedings In the instant case, the proceedings was, thus, degenerated and decisions was vitiated by absence of fairness. Rule 20 (3)of the said Rules cannot be construed to mean that the delinquent shall not be given opportunity of inspecting the documents, adducing his own witnesses and knowing the adverse materials relied on by the adjudicatory authority. Adequate opportunity appearing in Rule 20 (3) of the said Rule means and implies that (1) No one can be condemned unheard. (2) Notice to the affected party to Show Cause is a must. (3) Reasonable opportunity should be accorded to him to state his case. (4) No fact or document should be withheld from the knowledge of the party affected. (5) The hearing should be quasi-judicial in character and objective in nature. (6) The hearing authority is impartial. Mr. Mitra, while assailing the functions of the Appellate Authority argued that there was no long drawn enquiry nor the persons and employees, from whom the statements and depositions were obtained, were, produced before the enquiry commenced in pursuance of the show cause notice issued on February 6, 1985, that the findings of the District sub Registrar as also the order of the District Registrar are not based on legal evidence nor scrap reasons were also recorded by the District registrar. ' 31. THE Appellate Authority, in my view, while discharging the functions cannot act in such a manner as is wholly contrary to fair play. ' 31. THE Appellate Authority, in my view, while discharging the functions cannot act in such a manner as is wholly contrary to fair play. The Appellate Authority should remain uninhibited by prior knowledge nor he should have received materials adverse to the right of the petitioner before presentation of the appeal. The Appellate Authority cannot usurp the function of the Disciplinary' Authority by accepting all adverse materials before the appeal is presented. 32. IN the instant case, the Appellate Authority completely transgressed the limit of fair procedure by accepting the materials operating to the prejudice of the petitioner before the appeal was presented. The order passed by him, by reason of the findings reached above, on consideration of the materials on record cannot be sustained and accordingly, they are overruled. The contention of Mr. Mitra is that the reception of undisclosed materials by the Appellate Authority before the passing of the order dated March 15, 1985 worked out serious prejudice and injustice to the petitioner. How the Appellate Authority should remain free from any prejudged notion in a case where it without authority received the undisclosed materials which were used against the petitioner at the time when the district Registrar was in the seizing of the matter. Further, the Appellate authority should not have acted in such manner as was found in the facts of the case. The Appellate Authority should not have, in my view, entertained any such adverse materials before the appeal was presented before him. There is a complete departure from fair play in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellate Authority received the complaint and forwarded the same to the Adjudicatory Authority. During the course of the enquiry proceedings, the Appellate Authority received materials which operated to the prejudice of the petitioner. The procedure, thus, adopted, by the Appellate Authority is incurably tainted with the irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety. The duty of the Appellate authority would be effectively discharged if it received all the materials from the Adjudicatory Authority after the appeal was presented before him. Here, the procedure resorted to is contrary to what have been stated above. The contention of Mr. Dasgupta as are indicated above by reason of incurable infirmities founded upon irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety cannot but fail. The contention of Mr. Here, the procedure resorted to is contrary to what have been stated above. The contention of Mr. Dasgupta as are indicated above by reason of incurable infirmities founded upon irrationality, illegality and procedural impropriety cannot but fail. The contention of Mr. Mitra is that the petitioner was found guilty of charges which did not find place in the Show Cause Notice is now to be considered. Mr. Mitra claimed that the adjudicatory authority acted with illegality in taking into account the charge namely, the mater of Bijoy Manik on March 13, 1985 long after the Show cause Notice was issued. The District Registrar also before the issue of the order of cancellation of licence without giving an opportunity to the petitioner by allowing him to have any access to such exparte findings made from time to time by the District Registrar passed the order dated March 15, 1985. While recording his findings against Sri Hari pada Chowdhury and Sri Dilip Kumar Basu, the Disciplinary Authority, reached a firm conclusion as regards the alleged guilt of the petitioner. The said findings as far as the petitioner is concerned is quoted below: "As to Sri Dulal Chandra Mondal, the scribe, it has definitely been found that he is the main person involved in the tampering and with direct or indirect help of other accomplices in the case, he has interpolated the figures found in the deed and register as the figures tally with his hand-writing taken in my presence. Moreover, there is other allegations against his conduct in matter of Sri Bijoy Marik whose stamps he snatched and destroyed in an earlier complaint. As conduct of such a deed-writer is harmful to the prestige of the department as well a safety of public documents, the licence of such deed writer should not be allowed to be retained and should immediately be cancelled under Rule 20 (3) of the w. B. R. (D. W) Rule, 1982 as regular proceedings has been drawn against him on framing charges and allowing him to defend himself and his statements recorded." 33. IF the Appellate Authority had considered the matters on its own without the prior knowledge of the proceedings initated by the District registrar it would have been another matter, but the order pronounced by the Appellate Authority could not be said to be a valid order for the reasons indicated hereinbefore. IF the Appellate Authority had considered the matters on its own without the prior knowledge of the proceedings initated by the District registrar it would have been another matter, but the order pronounced by the Appellate Authority could not be said to be a valid order for the reasons indicated hereinbefore. The infringement of concept of the rule of law is patent. The total effect of the proceeding impugned in the writ application, so far the District Registrar is concerned, presents that the District Registrar discharged dual functions by discharging the adjudicating and prosecuting functions. If the Court accepts such dual functions by allowing the District Registrar to discharge the adjudicating and prosecuting functions, insurmountable difficulty would be created. The said difficulty is that a party affected may be prejudiced and on the ground thereof he may not get fair treatment. There is also inherent danger arising out of combination of dual functions of Prosecutor and judge. 34. HERE, the mind of the District Registrar beyond any doubt is irrevocably closed that his predisposition to the issues involved is manifest. The total presence of pro-conception in the mind of the District registrar as also the District Sub Registrar is manifestly patent. In view of the foregoing findings, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contention of Mr. Dasgupta. All the proceedings excepting the Show Cause Notice are set aside. The order dated January 19, 1985 whereby the District Sub Registrar held that the licence of the petitioner may be cancelled, the order dated February 25, 1985 and orders dated March 13, 14 and 15, 1985 and the appellate order dated April 22, 1986 are all set aside. Since the orders were not made available to the petitioner, the Court in its inherent exercise of power declares the orders illegal, invalid and accordingly, the said orders for the reasons as are indicated above cannot be sustained and they are set aside. This order shall net prevent the respondents from proceeding with the matter de novo but they are required to act in terms of the findings reached hereinbefore. 35. ACCORDINGLY, the application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. Application allowed in part.