Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks quashing of the enquiry report holding him guilty of the charges and the order of his removal from service in a departmental proceeding. 2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition shortly stated are these. During his tenure as Materials Manager under the Bharat Wagon and engineering Company Ltd (the Company in short), the petitioner was placed under suspension and served with memo of charges on 4-1 82 alleging that he had made aspersions against the General Manager of the Company in his letter dated 28-10-81 which was subversive of discipline and good behaviour ; that he had placed a firm price order of supply of certain articles in disregard and violation of the sanction order of the Chairman-cum-Managing director (CMD) requiring incorporation of esculation of clause and that he had failed to take effective action on M/s Bihar Pioneer industries in the matter of acceptance of the terms and conditions in placing purchase order The petitioner filed his explanation denying the charges. The explanation was not accepted and a departmental enquiry was formally initiated with the appointment of Shri O P Garg, general Manager of Muzaffarpur Unit of the Company as the Enquiry officer. The petitioner objected to appointment of Shri Garg on the ground that he was on probation and being directly subordinate to the cmd he was not expected to hold an independent enquiry. It is said that the respondents did not sent any reply on the objection of the petitioner and he was compelled to participate in the enquiry proceeding The Enquiry officer submitted an adverse enquiry report on 27-7-82, a copy whereof is annexure-17/a. On 2-8-82 the petitioner was given an opportunity of submitting representation against the proposed punishment and ultimately. impugned order as contained in Annexure-19 removing the petitioner from service pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors of the Company in that regard was issued on 19-8-92. 3. It is not necessary to refer to the details of the charges or defence for the disposal of this writ petition. 4. The writ petition contains various grounds suggesting that the petitioner suffered prejudice in many ways. 3. It is not necessary to refer to the details of the charges or defence for the disposal of this writ petition. 4. The writ petition contains various grounds suggesting that the petitioner suffered prejudice in many ways. All of them, however, were not pressed during the course of hearing Learned counsel for the petitioner made a five faceted complaint of violation of rules of natural justice. Grievance was made of bias against the t nquiry Officer, denial of the facilities of a defence representative, non-supply of documents, non-acceptance of the written brief by the Enquiry Officer and denial of opportunity to lead defence evidence during enquiry. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the submission of the parties and examined the materials on record I do not feel pursuaded to accept the complaint, as regards bias, denial of the facilities of defence representative, non-supply of documents and non-acceptance of brief. However, since the writ petition is fit to succeed on the ground of denial of opportunity to adduce defence evidence during enquiry. I do not think it necessary to discuss the aforementioned other grievances and state reasons for not accepting them. 6. According to the petitioner, he had filed an application on 17-6-82 to summon Shri H. K. P. Jain, Financial Controller, Mokamah Unit and shri B. P. Sinha, Works Manager, Muzaffarpur Unit. The Enquiry Officer, however, neither summoned the witnesses nor passed any order on the petition the allegation is refuted by the respondents saying that the aforesaid application was received by the Enquiry Officer on 25-6-82 when the enquiry had already concluded on 21-6-82 ft is also said that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to lead defence which did not do. It is important to state here that minutes of the proceeding have not been brought on record nor the original records have been produced which could show the exact manner in which the proceeding had been held. A resume of the events taking place in the course of the proceeding, however, had bsen given in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. It is not necessary to refer to each days proceeding for the purpose of consideration of the point in issue. Suffice it to say that in all 10 sittings were held, the first being on 20-4-82. The petitioner was present on some of them. It is not necessary to refer to each days proceeding for the purpose of consideration of the point in issue. Suffice it to say that in all 10 sittings were held, the first being on 20-4-82. The petitioner was present on some of them. In token of his presence on some of the dates he also signed the proceeding although on some occasions he refused to do so. The resume shows that the 8th sitting was held on 10-6-80 when the petitioner was called upon to cross-examine the managements witnesses. It is said that the petitioner declined to cross-examine and walked out of the proceeding He again staged a walk out in the next sitting held 17-6-82 after having participated in the pre-luncheon session the significant aspect, however, is that on these two dates the proceeding, which was held either in the presence of the petitioner or in his absence after his walk out, related to the examination of managements witnesses. There is nothing in the resume of the proceeding dated 17-6-82 that the same was fixed for examination of defence witnesses or that any opportunity bad been given to him for the purpose. It is said that after the petitioner walked out at 1.30 P. M. on 17-6-82, the proceeding continued after recess in his absence and was adjourned to 21-6-96 to give a final opportunity to the petitioner to state his defence. " On the next date, i e, 21-6-82 the enquiry was closed after recording the petitioners absence inspite of steps for fresh service of notice on him as per special messenger as well as by registered post It may be stated that notice sent by the special messenger about next date being 21-6-82 could not be served on the petitioner as his residence was completely locked up and none was available. 7. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was asked to give his defence evidence in the pre-luncheon session of the proceeding on 17-6-82 when he was present. After he left at 1.30 P M , the proceeding continued even after recess in his absence before being adjourned to 21-6-82 to give a final opportunity to the petitioner to state his defence. After he left at 1.30 P M , the proceeding continued even after recess in his absence before being adjourned to 21-6-82 to give a final opportunity to the petitioner to state his defence. There is no indication in the resume of the proceeding nor there is any specific averment in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was asked to give his defence evidence on 17-6-82 while he was present. Further, there is nothing indicate that the petitioner had any information that the managements evidence had been closed and next date fixed was for defence. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to indicate at all that the managements evidence was closed 8. The conduct of the petitioner during the course of enquiry was no doubt not satisfactory. There are materials showing non-cooperation and recalcitrance on his part. Non-cooperation in the preliminary stage of the enquiry cannot, however, justify denial of opportunity to effectively participate in the enquiry at a later stage. There are different stages of enquiry, such as. filing of show cause, examination and cross-examination of witnesses production of defence evidence and so on. It is true that examination or cross-examination of the witnesses in all cases is not integral part of the departmental enquiry. However, where charges are sought to be established with the aid of oral evidence, as in the instant case, an opportunity to the delinquent to lead counter oral evidence cannot be denied to him. Even if the stand of the respondents that the application said to have been filed on 17-6-82 for summoning the two witnesses was received on 23-6-82 is accepted to be true, in my view, the enquiry officer was obliged to fix a firm date for leading defence after necessary information to the petitioner to that effect On the facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of leading evidence and therefore, the ultimate order of his removal from service on the basis of that enquiry cannot be sustained. Principles of natural justice have several facets. They are not strait-jacket rigid formulae. Their application depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In its essence, however, the principle holds that no persoa shall be condemned without a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Principles of natural justice have several facets. They are not strait-jacket rigid formulae. Their application depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In its essence, however, the principle holds that no persoa shall be condemned without a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. On the facts of the case, such an opportunity would extend to giving an opportunity to examine witnesses and lead defence evidence. Since the petitioner was not provided with such an opportunity, the impugned order of removal dated 2-8-82 contained in Annexure-19 cannot be sustained. 9. On the facts of the case, however, I am not inclined to pass any consequential order as to entitlement of the petitioner to any momentary benefit for the intervening period, particularly in absence of any material suggesting that the petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period. That is a matter of evidence and the petitioner may seek that seek that relief before any other forum in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the order dated 2-8-82 contained in Annexure-12 is quashed and the writ application is allowed. There will be order as to costs. Aftaft Alam.-I agree: application allowed.