Judgment M.L. Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner was a Lecturer in Kisan Degree College, Basti. He was suspended on 22-3-1981 and was given a charge sheet by one Ram Lakhan Chand, Secretary of the Committee of Management. The Management appears to have appointed the said Ram Lakhan Chand as enquiry officer and was asked to hold enquiry in the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to file a reply to the charge sheet. He, however, denied the charges and wanted to file a written statement for which he made a request to the enquiry officer in writing on 13-4-1981. The petitioner is said to have made three requests in this letter. He prayed for revocation of the suspension order, secondly, he prayed for permission to inspect the documents and wanted copies of the document, were which the basis of the charges levelled against him, to enable him to file writtens statement; and thirdly, he preyed for three months' time to file reply. In the aforesaid letter the petitioner had commented on the merits of the charges also and had denied the charges it is contended that it was not a reply to the charge sheet. It was only a request for withdrawal of suspension and for supply of documents. 2. The Enquiry Officer, Sri Ram Lakhan Chand, in his reply dated 18-5-1981 to the letter of the petitioner dated 13-4-1981 informed the petitioner that as enquiry officer he cannot consider the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his suspension order, the question of withdrawal of suspension was beyond the scope of the enquiry proceedings. In respect of other requests i.e. for inspection and supply of documents and for allowing him to file the reply the enquiry officer conveyed to the petitioner : "..You have given reply to the charge-sheet item wise, it is now futile at this stage, to allow you to inspect the documents mentioned by you in your reply to the charge sheet. Had you not given the reply to the charge sheet item wise I would have allowed you time for inspection but as the reply to the charge sheet is complete I disallow, at this stage, the inspection of the documents mentioned by you. Had you not given the reply to the charge sheet item wise I would have allowed you time for inspection but as the reply to the charge sheet is complete I disallow, at this stage, the inspection of the documents mentioned by you. The documents forming the basis of charges have already been mentioned in the charge-sheet and in case you wish to look Into any of them even after the submission of your explanation I may permit the same at the time of hearing if 3 written request is made by you within a week of the receipt of this latter.." The petitioner thereafter is surd to have written to the enquiry officer on 5-6-1981 that if he was not allowed inspection of documents he would act be able to clear the charges against him, He also submitted a list of 21 persons whom he proposed to examine as witnesses and enlisted some documents which he wanted to be examined He also requested the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry in the college campus in Basti itself. The enquiry officer had decided to conduct the enquiry at his residence at Gorakhpur. However, this letter was not replied by the enquiry officer and the enquiry is said to have proceeded. The petitioner's requests were ignored. 3. On 8-6-1981 the petitioner is said to have written a letter again to the enquiry officer for adjustment of the enquiry and to as a date after summer vacations as most of the defence witnesses were out of station on account of summer vacations. He was also not available for some personal reason. He also made a request for holding the enquiry at Basti. On 26-6-1981 the petitioner is said to have received a letter from |the enquiry officer dated 16-6-1981 in which the enquiry officer had desired the petitioner to appear before him at his residence at Gorakhpur on 25-6-1981. Since the Setter was received after that date, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to have gone to Gorakhpur on 25-6-1911. However, on 29-6-1981 the petitioner appears to have received another letter from the enquiry officer informing him that the enquiry was adjourned to 12-7-1981. The petitioner is said to have written to the enquiry officer to allow him to inspect certain documents which were relied upon in the charge-sheet and not to hold the enquiry at Gorakhpur. However, on 29-6-1981 the petitioner appears to have received another letter from the enquiry officer informing him that the enquiry was adjourned to 12-7-1981. The petitioner is said to have written to the enquiry officer to allow him to inspect certain documents which were relied upon in the charge-sheet and not to hold the enquiry at Gorakhpur. The petitioner is said to have involved in some Criminal case and he apprehended danger to his life, therefore, he made a request to hold the enquiry at Basti because in his opinion Gorakhpur was not a safe place for the conduct of the enquiry. 4. On 13-7-1981 the petitioner is said to have received a show cause notice dated 23-6-1982. The petitioner was required to show cause within 13 days why ha should not be dismissed from service of the college as per the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 23-6-1982. On 24-7-1982 the petitioner requested the Secretary to give an opportunity to the petitioner of personal hearing to explain to the Commutes of Management his ease and requested for a date to be fixed in this regard and he be informed 15 days in advance of such date. The petitioner made a request to the Vice Chancellor also to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, a personal hearing was act given to the petitioner. On 22-9-1982 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner requested the Vice Chancellor not to grant approval to the decision of the Committee of Management dated 22-9-1982. However the petitioner received a letter on 8-2-1983 dated 31-1-1983 from the Principal of the College informing him that the Vice Chancellor had already approved the resolution of the Committee of Management dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner was dismissed wish effect from 27-1-1983. The petitioner's representation to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. Universities Act also was dismissed on 12-8-1983, which is also prayed to be quashed. The enquiry is said to have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was dismissed wish effect from 27-1-1983. The petitioner's representation to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. Universities Act also was dismissed on 12-8-1983, which is also prayed to be quashed. The enquiry is said to have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and was refused permission to inspect the documents and was not supplied copies of the documents, on which the charges were based therefore, he was deprived of his right to file effective reply, which would amount to breach of the principles of natural justice and which is against the Statute 17.06 of the University, The order of dismissal therefore, is vitiated. The enquiry officer is said to have been biased to the petitioner. He did not follow the procedure, which was required to be followed. The enquiry report, as also the resolution of the Committee of Management based on the said report, was illegal and void. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Committee of Management which, according to the learned counsel for the parties is not managing the institution. The institution is run by the authorised controller and two groups claim themselves to be managing committee and are said to be contesting their claims in the High court through the medium of a writ petition, which is said to be pending. Mr. R.G. Padia has stated that he has filed the writ petition and by virtue of the interim orders granted in the said writ petition he has a locus standi to file counter affidavit. The enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is justified by one Sheo Murti Upadhyaya, who has filed the counter affidavit. It is averred that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer according to the statutes and the petitioner wanted to delay the enquiry, which was not allowed by the enquiry officer. The enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and there is no defect in the enquiry proceedings. The allegations against the petitioner are levelled and it is stated that he was responsible for cresting a situation in the college, which is beyond repairs. The enquiry report is said to be self-explanatory and is based on facts. The enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and there is no defect in the enquiry proceedings. The allegations against the petitioner are levelled and it is stated that he was responsible for cresting a situation in the college, which is beyond repairs. The enquiry report is said to be self-explanatory and is based on facts. The allegations made by the petitioner against the enquiry officer and in respect of breach of the principles of natural justice are denied. 6. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed, which controverts the facts set up in the counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice that the petitioner was subsequently convicted of a murder charge and he has filed an appeal against his conviction, which is pending in the High Court. Though the High Court has granted him bail also but he stands convicted by the Sessions Judge This fact is confirmed by Mr. S.P. Gupta, appealing for the petitioner. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and he in ordinary course stand retired. 7. We are not concerned with any factual aspect of the matter. The petitioner's conviction or involvement in a murder case is cot the basis of charges, which are levelled against him nor are we concerned with the petitioner's superannuation. The only question, which was canvassed before us by Mr. Gupta, was in respect of breach of principles of natural justice and its effect on the enquiry, which was conducted by Mr. Rata Lakhan Chand, enquiry officer. It was contended that the petitioner was not allowed time to file the written statement and he was denied, permission to inspect the documents. Evan the defence witnesses were not permitted to be examined and the enquiry as conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Statutes. 8. Rata Lakhan Chand, enquiry officer. It was contended that the petitioner was not allowed time to file the written statement and he was denied, permission to inspect the documents. Evan the defence witnesses were not permitted to be examined and the enquiry as conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Statutes. 8. Gorakhpur University has its own Statutes Statute 17.06 enjoins on the authorities not to pass any order of dismissal, removal or termination of services of a teacher unless a charge has been framed and the teacher has been communicated the said charge with a statement of the grounds on which It is proposed to take action and he has been given adequate opportunity : (i) of submitting a written statement of his defence; (ii) of being heard in person, if he so chooses; and (iii) of calling and examining such witnesses in his defence as he may wish; Provided that the Management or the officer authorised by it to conduct the Inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call any witness. The Statute is replete with adequate safeguard for an incumbent who is to be dismissed, removed or terminated from service on any ground mentioned in Stature 17.04, Statute 17.04 mentions the grounds on which a teacher of an affiliated College may be dismissed or removed or terminated from service. 9. Apart from constitutional guarantees, which are available to the petitioner to defend himself the Statute has provided sufficient guarantee to the petitioner to defend himself and the authorities, who are empowered to take action against the petitioner, are obliged to follow the procedure laid down in Statute 17.06 of the Statutes. 10. The letter of the enquiry officer dated 18-5-1981 addressed to the petitioner in reply to his letter dated 13-4-1981, extracts where from are reproduced in this judgment, would clearly show that the enquiry officer his not followed the procedure In the matter of enquiry as provided under Statute 17.06 of the Statutes of the University, which he was obliged to follow. After the proposed punishment was conveyed to the petitioner, he had sought a personal hearing to explain the grounds appearing against him in the enquiry report. That was also not given to him. After the proposed punishment was conveyed to the petitioner, he had sought a personal hearing to explain the grounds appearing against him in the enquiry report. That was also not given to him. It was necessary for the enquiry officer or for any authority, which was competent to pass punishment order against the petitioner, to afford him a right of hearing. The right is specifically guaranteed to the petitioner under the Statutes. The same was denied to the petitioner and he was deprived of a valuable right, which was available to him. The charges which are levelled against the petitioner are based on some documents, which are referred in the charge sheet. It is an admitted case of the parties that copies of those documents were not supplied to the petitioner nor was he allowed to conduct inspection of those documents to enable him to file effective reply to the charges. Such a course was not allowed to be followed by the Statutes. He was told that he would be permitted to inspect the documents at the time of hearing of the charges. That is not the compliance of law. If a charge was based on some document, it was Imperative for the respondents to supply copy of that document to the petitioner to enable him to make effective reply By denying him inspection of documents and by not supplying him the copies of the required documents, the petitioner has been denied the valuable light of filing an effective reply to the charges. It is the requirement of law and rudimentary principles of natural justice would require that if the allegation is based on a document and the allegation is sought to be enquired into, the person against whom such allegation is levelled is to be allowed time to file the reply and to enable him to file the reply, he must be supplied copies of the documents which are sought to be used against him in support of the allegations. If the documents are not given to him, he will not be able to make an effective reply and the result of all this would be denial of adequate opportunity to the person concerned, who is likely to be affected by the enquiry which is proposed to be conducted against him. The petitioner was, therefore, denied adequate opportunity of defending himself by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was, therefore, denied adequate opportunity of defending himself by the enquiry officer. Statute 17.06 is mandatory and it obliges the authorities to follow the procedure before a conclusion is drawn. 11. The petitioner's witnesses, whom he wanted to produce in defence, were also not examined he had filed a list of witnesses and he wanted to examine the witnesses. Naturally it was his prerogative under Statute 17.06(3) to examine witnesses in his defence. The examination of defence witnesses could be dispensed with only for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. No such reason has been discernible from the record. Therefore, this is also a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, which is committed by the enquiry officer. 12. Thereafter the petitioner prayed for personal hearing, which was also refused. He was not informed about the date on which the enquiry report was to be considered by the Committee of Management nor was he asked by the Committee of Management to appear before them before consideration of she enquiry report. He was denied a right to appear in person by the Committee of Management and that denial would account that he was not dealt with in accordance with fair play and the principles of natural justice. The Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor do not seem to have followed the principles of law in their orders. The Vice Chancellor has granted approval without considering as to whether Statute 17.06 of the Gorakhpur University was followed or not. The Chancellor also seems to have not considered this important aspect of the case. He seems to have based his opinion on the view taken by the Vice Chancellor in the matter. Therefore, both the functionaries of the University under the Gorakhpur University Act have failed to appreciate the petitioner's case in accordance with law. 13. We are not going into the factual aspect of the matter. The correctness or otherwise of the charges cannot be determined by us. That was to be determined by the enquiry officer. We only are concerned as to whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with Statute 17.06 of the Gorakhpur University. The correctness or otherwise of the charges cannot be determined by us. That was to be determined by the enquiry officer. We only are concerned as to whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with Statute 17.06 of the Gorakhpur University. As pointed out, the enquiry was conducted in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and in breach of Statute 17.06 of the Gorakhpur University Act Therefore, any punishment passed against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report by the Committee of Management or by the Vice Chancellor or the. Chancellor is liable to be set aside. The enquiry report itself is vitiated. So it cannot be made a basis for the punishment of the petitioner. 14. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Chancellor dated 12-8-1983 end that of the Vice Chancellor dated 25/27-1-1983 granting approval to the order of the Committee of Management dismissing the petitioner from service and also set aside the orders of the Committee of Management dated 22-8-1982 and 28-9-1982 (Annexures VIII and IX to the writ petition respectively). The writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 15. This judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner on 22-3-1981 vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Should the respondents decide to hold a fresh enquiry, they shall conclude the said enquiry within six months from the date of presentation of a Certified copy of this judgment before the respondents by the petitioner or an; of the respondents. The petitioner shall not be treated to have been suspended on 22-3-1981 because the suspension passed against the petitioner, which had merged in the dismissal order is already set aside by this judgment the petitioner shall be paid his salary from the date of his suspension till he reaches the age of superannuation to enable him to defend himself effectively in any enquiry that may be set up against him afresh. Petition allowed.