Judgment B.N.Agrawal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the enquiry report contained in Annexure-5 submitted by Sri P. K. Jha, Superintendent of Divisional Jail, Katihar, the order passed by the disciplinary authority contained in Annexure-8, whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service, and the appellate order contained in Annexure-10 affirming the aforesaid order. 3. In my view, the facts of the enquiry are so telling that I have no option but to allow this writ application which would be apparent from the facts stated hereunder. 4. According to learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner the enquiry report is vitiated on the ground stated hereunder. 5. Firstly, it has been submitted that upon receipt of the charge-sheet the petitioner wanted certain papers which were necessary for filing show cause but the same was denied to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. It is said that out of the papers required by the petitioner, only some were supplied and thereafter the petitioner did file his incomplete show cause. He anticipated that further papers will be supplied to him and thereafter he will file full show cause. In this connection, stand of the State in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was asked to inspect the other papers. It has nowhere been stated in the counter-affidavit that copies of other papers could not be supplied as the same were bulky. 6. If the papers demanded by the delinquent Government servant relate to the charges framed against him, then the authorities are bound to supply copies unless and until the authorities are of the view that it is not possible to supply its copies because the same are bulky one and in that eventuality only the authorities can direct the delinquent Government servant to make inspection of the bulky records otherwise it is enjoined upon the State and its officials to supply copies of all the documents demanded by him. 7. From the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that all the documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the enquiry report is vitiated on this ground as well. 8. Apart from this, it has been stated that before serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was held and behind the back of the petitioner certain witnesses were examined. 7. From the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that all the documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the enquiry report is vitiated on this ground as well. 8. Apart from this, it has been stated that before serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was held and behind the back of the petitioner certain witnesses were examined. After submission of the show cause by the petitioner, those witnesses, were not examined and in their statement they simply stated that they have already made statement dunng the course of preliminary enquiry and they do not propose to say anything further. The petitioners grievance is that during the course of departmental proceeding, no statement of the witnesses has been recorded. What the witnesses stated during the course of preliminary enquiry is not on the record and the petitioner has no knowledge of the same as the witnesses were not examined in his presence and those documents were not brought on the record. Therefore, the petitioner wanted that the enquiry officer should supply copies of those statements of the witnesses which were made during the course of preliminary enquiry but the same have not been supplied to him. 9. The stand of the State in this regard is that the petitioner was asked to inspect the record. I really fail to understand the reasons of the authorities. A Government servant is entitled under law to have copies of each and every document which is being used against him during the course of departmental proceeding and direction of Govt. servant to inspect those depositions is wholly unknown to law. This shows a complete betrayal of service jurisprudence by the enquiry officer. 10. Since the documents could not be supplied to the petitioner, he was not in a position to examine the witnesses. In my view for this reason also the enquiry report is vitiated. 11. Further ground of attack is that the enquiry report was submitted by Sri P.K. Jha, Superintendent of Divisional Jail, who was appointed to hold enquiry and submit report. So far this officer is concerned, he was himself a witness during the course of enquiry in support of the case of the State and he deposed as such during the course of enquiry. So far this officer is concerned, he was himself a witness during the course of enquiry in support of the case of the State and he deposed as such during the course of enquiry. I am astonished to find as to now a person who is witness on behalf of one of the parties can be nominated as enquiry officer. It is basic principle that a person who is himself a witness cannot hold an enquiry as he cannot be a Judge of his own conduct. In the enquiry report, this conducting officer is required to appraise his own evidence also. In the eye of law how he can appraise his own evidence either for accepting or rejecting. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the general rule but this is not one of such cases which comes under the exception. Therefore, the enquiry report is vitiated on this ground as well. 12. For the foregoing reasons in my view the enquiry report contained in Annexure-5 is fit to be quashed as the same is vitiated and consequently the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service contained in Annexure-8 and the appellate authority affirming the same contained in Annexure-10 are illegal. 13. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the enquiry report contained in Annexure-5 and the orders contained in Annexure-8 and 10 are hereby quashed. 14. Now the disciplinary authority shall nominate a person other than the previous enquiry officer to hold enquiry in relation to the charges against the petitioner. 15. The petitioner shall be supplied with copies of all the documents for which he had already applied and the same have not been supplied unless and until it is found that the documents are very bulky. In case, the documents are found to be bulky, the petitioner shall be given reasonable opportunity to inspect of the same and take relevant extracts therefrom. If the enquiry officer so nominated decides to use exparte statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry, he can do that but before the evidence starts, copies of those evidence must be supplied to the petitioner so that he may cross examine those witnesses during the departmental enquiry. If the enquiry officer so nominated decides to use exparte statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry, he can do that but before the evidence starts, copies of those evidence must be supplied to the petitioner so that he may cross examine those witnesses during the departmental enquiry. In case, the enquiry officer decides not to act upon that and to examine the witnesses afresh on behalf of the State during the course of enquiry, it will be open to him to do so. 16. It will be open to the State to adduce evidence/further evidence in this case. The petitioner shall also be given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence. After the enquiry is concluded, the enquiry officer shall after hearing the parties submit his report. Upon receipt of the said report, the disciplinary authority before passing final order shall serve a copy thereof upon the petitioner and thereafter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, final order shall be passed upon the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority. 17. Since the order awarding punishment which was passed on 17.6.1993 has been quashed by me and the petitioner could not function from mat date, for no fault of his but because of illegal and erroneous order passed by the authorities, he is entitled to payment of salary from 17.6.1993 till this date which must be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. If the petitioner submits his joining the same shall be accepted forthwith and he shall be allowed to function unless and until fresh order of suspension is passed against him. 19. It appears that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was under suspension. Keeping in mind the nature of charges against the petitioner, in my view, the State will not be unjustified in passing fresh order of suspension against the petitioner during the course of disciplinary proceeding. 20. With the aforesaid directions, this writ application is disposed of.