JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - This is a second appeal filed by the Union of India and its officers against the appellate judgement and order dated 18.3.1976 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, dismissing Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1974 filed by the appellants. 2. In brief the facts are these ; The plaintiff respondent was appointed as Branch Post Master in a Branch Post Office at Azamgarh on 21.1.1964. He continued on the said post till 4.6.1971. Later on he was served with a charge-sheet levelling the charge that the respondent had wrongly detained and returned to the sender money Order No. 384 dated 24.4.1970. The departmental proceedings started against the respondent on the basis of the above charge-sheet. During the course of enquiry the respondent demanded copies of certain documents including Money Order Form No. 384. Some papers were supplied to him but the papers as demanded including Money Order Form No. 384 were not applied. The respondent, therefore, could not furnish his explanation and ultimately on the basis of the departmental enquiry report the services of the respondent were terminated. 3. The respondent after giving due notice under Section 80 CPC filed suit No. 60 of 1972 challenging the validity of the termination order on the allegations that the appellants had arbitrarily terminated his services in violation of the Principles of natural justice ; that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the departmental enquiry and that he was not given any personal hearing. He prayed for a declaration that the order of termination of his services was illegal, inoperative and void and that he was still continuing in service of the appellant with all benefits. 4. The suit was contested by the appellants. On the pleadings of the parties the main issue framed by the trial court was whether the order of termination of the plaintiffs services dated 23.11.1970 was illegal, invalid and inoperative as alleged by the plaintiff (respondent) filed the necessary papers and produced himself as P.W. 1. The appellants adduced no oral evidence but filed certain documentary evidence. 5. Two submissions were made on behalf of the respondent in the trial court: (1) that the respondent was denied an opportunity of being heard by the Departmental Enquiry, and (2) that the Departmental Enquiry was illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The appellants adduced no oral evidence but filed certain documentary evidence. 5. Two submissions were made on behalf of the respondent in the trial court: (1) that the respondent was denied an opportunity of being heard by the Departmental Enquiry, and (2) that the Departmental Enquiry was illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The appellants supported the order of termination and alleged that it was validity passed and did not suffer from any infirmity. It was alleged by the appellants that the Money Order Form demanded by the respondent was not relevant paper and as such it was not supplied. It was also alleged that the respondent had put up a false case in the plaint that since the money order was wrongly addressed to one Ram Karan Singh instead of Ram Kirti Singh, therefore, the money order was returned to the sender Matru in good faith. It will be relevant to mention here that the respondent had filed a copy of the statement of Ram Kirti Singh (Ex. 6) where in Ram Kirti Singh admitted that the money order was in fact wrongly addressed and was returned to the sender with his consent. Another plea taken on behalf of the appellants was that the respondent was not holding a civil post and as such he was not entitled to the protection order Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence on recorded by both the parties the trial court repelling the contentions of the appellants decreed the suit of the respondent on the findings that the order of termination was illegal, in operative and void and that the respondent was holding a civil post and was entitled to protection under Section 311 (2) of the Constitution . 7. An appeal against the judgment and order of the trial court was filled; by the appellant before the District Judge which was dismissed by the impugned order as shown above thus giving rise to this second appeal. The appellate court has also pointed that it was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that no notice to show cause was given to the respondent. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellate Sri Shekhar Srivastava has repeated the same contentions before this Court which were raised before the courts below and have been repelled by them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellate Sri Shekhar Srivastava has repeated the same contentions before this Court which were raised before the courts below and have been repelled by them. Having given-my anxious consideration to the matter and appraising the contentions on record I find that the Courts below for consent reason and after applying the law correctly have recorded the findings that the respondent was not afforded any reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the departmental enquiry that no personal hearing was given to the respondent and that the protection guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was available to the respondent. The non-supply of the Money Order Form in question which was a very material piece of evidence in favour of the respondent smacks of oblique intention on the part of the appellants to deprive the respondent to defend himself properly before the departmental enquiry and the courts. The evidence led by the respondent clearly proved his bonafides in returning the money order to the sender. In support of its view that the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was available to the respondent who was holding a civil post the trial court relied upon a decision in Writ No. 473 of 1968 Mangal Dutta v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi, and on the case on State of Assam v. K.C. Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884 . The appellate court while affirming the findings of the trial court relied upon Jogendra Bahadur v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 693, where again the view of the trial court was approved. 9. As regards the non-supply of documents demanded by the respondent the case in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2118 was cited by learned counsel for the respondent apart from various other cases. In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court held that non-supply of the copies of the statements of the witnesses and copies of the documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority prejudiced the appellate and the order of dismissal was violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1967 SC 884 ; AIR 1977 SC 1977 and AIR 1974 SC 2335 where similar view has been expressed . 10. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1967 SC 884 ; AIR 1977 SC 1977 and AIR 1974 SC 2335 where similar view has been expressed . 10. Pursuant to what has been stated above the appeal fails and deserve to be dismissed. 11. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs and the judgements and order of the courts below are affirmed in toto.