A. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) I am of opinion in this matter that the respondents need not be called upon to reply. This is an application for quashing of an order of dismissal dated 14. 8. 1987 dismissing the writ petitioner from the service of the Calcutta Port Trust on grounds of defalcation of money and unauthorised leave. ( 2 ) THE facts of this case are that the writ petitioner was handed over a sum of Rs. 5,06,984. 33 for the purpose of disbursement of moneys against bills for the month of January, 1986. The writ petitioner is said to have made certain disbursements, and kept balance cash moneys and bills against which payments had been made, locked in his cage on and from the 31st January, 1986. ( 3 ) THE show-cause notice regarding the enquiry to be held further states that from the 1st February, 1986 the writ petitioner started to absent himself. As port employees who had not collected payments were pressing for payments, the cage in which the moneys and bills in the custody of the writ petitioner were kept had to be opened, and the same could not be done as the writ petitioner continued with his absence. ( 4 ) IT was stated in the notice that the Deputy Chairman, to solve the dead-lock, formed a committee of four officers and authorised them to open the petitioner's locked up cage and make an inventory of the bills and cash. ( 5 ) FROM a comparison of the relevant bills and records of the respondent authorities and the documents and cash found in the cage of the absent writ petitioner, it appeared to the authorities that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 1293. 55 and that three bills showed an inflation of amounts whereby these appeared to falsify the vouchers to the extent of Rs. 90,000/ -. The show-cause notice dated 5th July, 1986 is annexed at page 42 of the annexures to the writ petition. The writ petitioner duly forwarded a written answer to the said showcause notice and the same is dated the 5th August, 1986. The enquiry was held on several days and several adjournments were granted on the request, of the writ petitioner. The enquiry report dated 22. 1. 1987 is also annexed to the writ petition and the same appears at page 85 thereof. The enquiry was held on several days and several adjournments were granted on the request, of the writ petitioner. The enquiry report dated 22. 1. 1987 is also annexed to the writ petition and the same appears at page 85 thereof. ( 6 ) IN the said enquiry report, the three bills in respect of which tampering had been alleged are mentioned along with the amounts which were actual, and the amounts which were shown by the writ petitioner in the bill. The chart in this respect showing misappropriation of Rs. 90,000/- as found by the enquiry officer is given below : ___________________________________________________________________________ bill No. Actual net Amount paid amount paid Amount as per total as shown shown in of individual Sri Chowdhury excess as amounts paid in the pay bill. paid. to employees. ____________________________________________________________________________ rs. P. Rs. P. Rs. P. Rs. P. (1) 578/396/ 12e/85 1,32,216. 43 1,31,557. 13 1,81,557. 13 50,000. 00 (2) 606/404/ 12e/85 98,434. 08 96,007. 77 1,16,007. 77 20,000. 00 (3) 92/441/ 1e/86 1,01,212. 80 1,01,212. 80 1,21,212. 80 20,000. 00 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3,28,777. 70 4,18,777. 70 90,000. 00 _____________________________________________________________________________ ( 7 ) THE enquiry officer also stated in paragraph 5. 3 of the report that the writ petitioner was a habitual absentee and that he was absent for as many as 12 days in a month on an average during the period 1st July, 1985 to January 31, 1986. It was also put on record that the writ petitioner did not report to duty at all after 1. 2. 1986. ( 8 ) IN this background Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the writ petitioner raised three points. The first point was that in spite of asking for legal help in the matter, the writ petitioner was not granted permission to have his case presented before the enquiry officer with the help of a lawyer. ( 9 ) THE second point raised by Mr. Bhattacharjee was that documents were not appropriately made available to the writ petitioner wherefrom his defence could be adequately made. By reason of such non-availability of papers, the second rule of natural justice was said to have been violated. ( 10 ) IT was thirdly stated that a police prosecution against the writ petitioner has resulted in no adverse consequence against the writ petitioner, and that by an order dated 4. 12. By reason of such non-availability of papers, the second rule of natural justice was said to have been violated. ( 10 ) IT was thirdly stated that a police prosecution against the writ petitioner has resulted in no adverse consequence against the writ petitioner, and that by an order dated 4. 12. 1990 further investigation was stopped by the S. D. J. M. at Alipore, by reason of the lapse of the statutory period fixed therefore. ( 11 ) REGARDING the first point Mr. Bhattacharjee relied upon the case of Bhagatram reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 ; in that case the Supreme Court had found a positive comparative disadvantage on the part of the employee who had been charged with indiscipline. It was held by their Lordships that the employee being a Class-IV employee and the department being assisted by a proper presenting officer the rules of fair play required that the said Class-IV employee be defended by another Government servant as otherwise he might be unable to appreciate different technical rules. ( 12 ) THERE is no absolute rule by way of which the service of a lawyer is necessarily to be made available to an officer who is charged with indiscipline. Significantly, the instant case, in the letter dated 5th August, 1986 the writ petitioner had asked for assistance of a lawyer and not the assistance of any departmental or other worker or co-employee or Officer. The above Supreme Court case is no authority for the proposition that if a lawyer's help is asked for it should be provided. In the writ petition in paragraph 13 the petitioner states that he was not allowed to defend himself by a defence helper; that allegation is quite different from what was asked for in the letter. It was not shown before me that at any stage the writ petitioner had asked for the assistance or help of another-co-worker of the writ petitioner and the same was refused. The writ petitioner himself conducted the proceeding and asked for inspection of documents and also took inspection thereof. Under the circumstances it is not possible to hold that the writ petitioner was placed at any disadvantageous position, or that there was any violation of the rules of natural justice. ( 13 ) MR. The writ petitioner himself conducted the proceeding and asked for inspection of documents and also took inspection thereof. Under the circumstances it is not possible to hold that the writ petitioner was placed at any disadvantageous position, or that there was any violation of the rules of natural justice. ( 13 ) MR. Bhattacharjee's further submission in this regard that the respondents should have pointed out to the writ petitioner that though he could not get the help of a lawyer yet he might get the help of a co-worker, if he asks for the same, is not acceptable. There is no duty cast upon the respondent authorities to tell the writ petitioner as to the various aspects of the law of natural justice or as to what sort of representation he might have in law in case he so chooses to ask for the same. The writ petitioner must assert his own rights and in this case there is no factor like illiteracy or disability by way of which the writ petitioner can be said to have suffered unjustly or inappropriately. ( 14 ) REGARDING the documents not being given to the writ petitioner, the minutes annexed to the writ petition themselves provide, in my opinion, adequate and sufficient answers to the grievances raised on behalf of the writ petitioner. The minutes at page 55 of the meeting held on 29th September, 1986 mention that the writ petitioner requisitioned certain documents which included the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,06,984. 33 and the three bills mentioned above in respect of which the improper upward revision took place, according to the respondents, at the instance of the writ petitioner himself. ( 15 ) THE next minutes relevant in this regard is the one of the meeting held on 7th October, 1986. It is recorded in those minutes that the documents called for were produced, that those documents were inspected by the writ petitioner and that the writ petitioner wanted to take full extracts thereof. To prevent any unnecessary delay in the proceedings the writ petitioner was permitted one day's time for taking the extracts and the writ petitioner, according to the minutes, agreed to complete the taking of extracts within that time. To prevent any unnecessary delay in the proceedings the writ petitioner was permitted one day's time for taking the extracts and the writ petitioner, according to the minutes, agreed to complete the taking of extracts within that time. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid it appears to me that the writ petitioner had an adequate chance to see and copy the documents on the basis of which charges against him had been leveled. The enquiry officer duly considered the defence case and granted adequate accommodation to the Writ petitioner to represent his case. It was only thereafter that the writ petitioner was found guilty of having revised the figures in the three bills upwards unauthorisedly and he was also found guilty of having declared to be in possession of locked up cash amount of Rs. 22,964. 60, though only Rs. 21,671. 05 was found upon opening up of the petitioner's case, thus revealing a shortage of cash of Rs. 1,293. 55. ( 17 ) THERE are no adequate materials before me showing any serious illness of the Writ petitioner by reason of which he could have absented himself from lst February, 1986 onwards. Mr. Bhattacharjee said that the writ petitioner suffered from a chest ailment and pain and that, at least in regard to the writ petitioner's illness, there was no 'hanky-panky'. With due respect to Mr. Bhattacharjee, there seems to be no indication of any serious or prolonged cardiac or other ailment of the writ petitioner. ( 18 ) THAT the writ petitioner gave intimation of his feeling unwell on the 31st January, 1986 was also denied before the Enquiry Officer by Sri T. N. Sen as recorded in paragraph 9. 6 of the enquiry report. ( 19 ) UNDER those circumstances it does not appear to me that the writ petitioner was at all unfairly treated in the enquiry proceedings in any manner whatsoever. The bona fides of the writ petitioner also does not seem to stand out very clearly. ( 20 ) MR. Bhattacharjee relied upon the case of Himangshu Bose reported In 1985, Vol. I Calcutta High Court Notes page-252 and said that the relevant documents which might be in the nature of previous statements should be made available to the officer charged, as otherwise the opportunity of giving a hearing might become illusory. ( 20 ) MR. Bhattacharjee relied upon the case of Himangshu Bose reported In 1985, Vol. I Calcutta High Court Notes page-252 and said that the relevant documents which might be in the nature of previous statements should be made available to the officer charged, as otherwise the opportunity of giving a hearing might become illusory. In the instant case all the documents were produced for inspection by the writ petitioner and therefore the enquiry being of an illusory nature cannot be contended by the writ petitioner. ( 21 ) MR. Bhattacharjee also relied upon the case of Nagam Chandrasekhar reported in AIR 1988 SC 1309 and stated on the basis thereof that if the Enquiring Commissioner makes enquiries behind the back of the person charged then and in that event the proceeding would be liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice. It was also shown that in the said case certain concession even had been made by counsel about the non-observance of the rules of natural justice. I am unable to agree with Mr. Bhattacharjee that on the basis of this case and on the basis of certain adjournments granted to the writ petitioner and certain adjournments refused I should come to the conclusion that on the days the adjournments were refused the enquiry proceeded behind the back of the writ petitioner. All that the rules of natural justice call for is the giving of an adequate opportunity to represent one's case. If in spite of such opportunities being given one absents oneself continuously then and in that event proceeding ex parte is not to be Warned as a proceeding behind the back of the person charged, but it would have to be termed as proceeding upon notice to the person charged, but in his absence, as he does not show sufficient willingness to be present at the enquiry. ( 22 ) MR. Bhattacharjee relied also upon two cases, one of the Supreme Court and one of the Calcutta Division Bench being respectively the cases of Sawai Singh and Manindra Kumar Ghosh respectively reported in AIR 1986 SC 995 and 1990 Volume-II Calcutta Law Times page-430. Mr. Bhattacharjee relied upon both these cases for the proposition that in an enquiry which might result in a dismissal from Service, the Enquiring Officer must proceed not upon conjecture but upon cogent evidence. Mr. Bhattacharjee relied upon both these cases for the proposition that in an enquiry which might result in a dismissal from Service, the Enquiring Officer must proceed not upon conjecture but upon cogent evidence. It would not be enough for the Enquiry Officer to base his finding on surmise but that the investigation should proceed consistently with the gravity of the charge and findings should be arrived at, even though not on the standards required for the proof of criminal liability, yet upon standards closely similar thereto. ( 23 ) THOUGH in a writ matter the Court does not sit in appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer, yet the manner of approach of the Enquiring Officer is under review. If in a matter dealing with the dismissal from service the enquiry is proceeded with in a slipshod way, or in a manner which might indicate that the Enquiring Officer was proceeding upon the basis of a standard of proof which is wrong in law, and not consistent with the principles laid down above, then and in that event the enquiry proceeding might be vitiated. In the instant case, however, I find that the Enquiring Officer gave due importance to the gravity of the charge and took into account all the relevant documents and gave a sufficient and adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner to represent his case. It is quite clear from the report that a strict standard of proof was being imposed and as such the finding of the Enquiring Officer on that basis, is not vitiated or misguided by application of any wrong norm or an application of any lesser standard of proof than is consistent with the law of the land in regard to this disciplinary proceeding. ( 24 ) I am unable to make much of Mr. Bhattacharjee's submission that only xerox copies of the bill were produced (as recorded in paragraph 3. 9 of the enquiry report) as the original bills were taken away by the police. The minutes of 16. 9. 87 show that, at least at that stage, when copy bills were produced, no grievance was made therefore and the writ petitioner agreed to take copies thereof in one day. That a police investigation was started is also not disputed. 9 of the enquiry report) as the original bills were taken away by the police. The minutes of 16. 9. 87 show that, at least at that stage, when copy bills were produced, no grievance was made therefore and the writ petitioner agreed to take copies thereof in one day. That a police investigation was started is also not disputed. On this basis it is not proper to hold that the writ petitioner did not get a proper hearing only because xerox copies were relied upon, the accuracy of which copies were never in any doubt. ( 25 ) MR. Bhattacharjee also relied upon the case of Anandram Jiandrai being a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1983 (1) Calcutta Law Journal page-8 : on the basis of the said case Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that if the Enquiring Officer shows bias in the conduct of proceeding then and in that event the enquiry held would be vitiated. The proposition is too true to call for citation of any authority. In the records before me I do not find the evidence of any bias on the part of the Enquiring Officer and no such concrete instance could be cited before me either. A bare perusal of the enquiry report, which covers 20 pages of the annexures to the writ petition, would show that the Enquiry Officer was proceeding on a basis which was both through and impartial. ( 26 ) THE writ petitioner has been out of service since the dismissal order was passed in August, 1987 and there was (understandably) no interim order reinstating him in service during the period of the pendency of the instant writ application. Accordingly the final order hereon does not call for any adjustment of any interlocutory rights. The writ application is accordingly dismissed and the rule, if any issued, is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.