ORDER N.G. Das, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated January 12, 1994 issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Jute Corporation of India Ltd. whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Inspector Traineeship was ordered to be discontinued with immediate effect. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner's case, shortly put, is that he was appointed Trainee Junior Inspector by the respondents and accordingly he joined on September 14,1985 at Bishramganj Sub-Centre at a monthly stipend of Rs. 400/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 600/-. While discharging his duties as a Trainee Junior Inspector the petitioner was asked to sit for the written examination in the month of February, 1987 which was held for regular isation of his services. The petitioner sat for the examination, but the result of the examination was not communicated to the petitioner. A similar examination was also held in the following year, but the petitioner was not called to sit for that examination. However, in the year 1989 the petitioner was again asked to sit for the same examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination under protest. But the result of this examination was also not communicated to the petitioner. On the other hand, some of the Trainees who joined with him and some of them who are junior to him were absorbed on regular basis and some of them were also promoted to the posts of Senior Inspector. 4. The petitioner, therefore, submitted some representation for regularisation of his service, but in the meantime, the respondent No. 2, viz. Personal Manager framed certain charges against the petitioner by his Memo dated November 15, 1990 under reference No. JCI/4 (50)/DPC/87/Vig(C). 4. The petitioner, therefore, submitted some representation for regularisation of his service, but in the meantime, the respondent No. 2, viz. Personal Manager framed certain charges against the petitioner by his Memo dated November 15, 1990 under reference No. JCI/4 (50)/DPC/87/Vig(C). The charges are that on December 12, 1986 the petitioner purchased two lorry-loads of Mesta from some local traders in an irregular and unauthorised manner; and secondly during the period from December 3, 1986 to December 15, 1986 of 1986-87 the petitioner allegedly recorded in the books of Ambassa Storage Centre receipt of two consignments of Mesta showing those to have been despatched from Bishramganj Sub- Centre by Shri Anjan Kr.Das, Ex-Junior Inspector (since removed from service of J.C.I. Ltd.) under two fictitious lorry challans bearing No. 30072 dated December 12, 1986 for 60.15 qtls. per lorry No. TRL 2269 and No. 30073 dated December 12, 1986 for 54.50 qtls. per lorry No. TRL6102 although no such consignment of Mesta was physically received by the petitioner through the aforesaid Lorries. 5. On receipt of the notice in respect of the aforesaid charges the petitioner submitted his reply. But thereafter the Respondent No. 2 appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges that were levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, Deputy Marketing Manager, who was appointed Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. During the enquiry the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and after appreciation of the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the charge No. 1 was not proved beyond doubt. However, with respect to the charge No. 2 the Enquiring Officer held that this charge was proved beyond doubt. The report was submitted to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director who issued necessary notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the report and after getting the reply of the petitioner awarded the punishment as mentioned above. 5A. The grievance of the petitioner is that during enquiry he submitted an application for furnishing him with copies of certain documents, -but those documents were not supplied to him and as a consequence thereof he has been prejudiced. It has also been alleged that some vital witnesses, namely. Shri Benu Majumdar, the Carrying Contractor who was a charge-sheeted witness was withheld without assigning any reason whatsoever. That apart, the petitioner wanted to examine one Mr. It has also been alleged that some vital witnesses, namely. Shri Benu Majumdar, the Carrying Contractor who was a charge-sheeted witness was withheld without assigning any reason whatsoever. That apart, the petitioner wanted to examine one Mr. A.K. Baruah as defence witness, but the Enquiring Officer did not secure his attendance on the simple ground that Shri A.K.Baruah refused to give; evidence. Apart from this, the petitioner wanted the copies of the statements of the witnesses who were examined during preliminary enquiry but the copies of the statements of those witnesses were not furnished to him. Moreover, the petitioner was not afforded a defence assistance of his own choice. 6. The respondents resisted the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been contended that me petitioner was initially appointed as Trainee Junior Inspector for a period of six months for training which might be further extended at the discretion of the management. But in absence of any specific order of extension the appointment of the Trainee automatically stands terminated. However, the petitioner was informed that the question of his absorption on regular basis will be considered after finalisation of the vigilance case agaiast him. 7. It has been further contended that during his training period the petitioner was found to have committed major misconduct in performance of his duties and accordingly some enquiry was held against him and in that enquiry it was found by the Enquiring Officer that the petitioner made false entries in respect of receipt of two consignments of Mesta under Challan Nos. 30072 and 30073 on December 12, 1986 at Ambassa Storage even though no such consignments of Mesta was at all despatched from Bishramganj. It has been further contended that the petitioner was afforded all opportunities during the course of enquiry for his defence and he was allowed the defence assistant to conduct the case in defence of him. It is however, true, that the petitioner wanted Mr. S. Hazra, the Regional Manager of the J.C.I. Agartala Region to defend his case as defence assistant. But Mr. Hazra being Incharge of the entire State of Tripurahis absence, at intervals, would hamper the administrative works and that is why for administrative reasons Mr. Hazra was not spared. Mr. It is however, true, that the petitioner wanted Mr. S. Hazra, the Regional Manager of the J.C.I. Agartala Region to defend his case as defence assistant. But Mr. Hazra being Incharge of the entire State of Tripurahis absence, at intervals, would hamper the administrative works and that is why for administrative reasons Mr. Hazra was not spared. Mr. Hazra was accordingly advised to inform the petitioner to engage any other public servant of his choice and the petitioner in his turn also engaged one Gour Basu, Officer Manager of the Jute Corporation to conduct the enquiry proceedings in his defence. Therefore, it is not a fact that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of engaging defence assistant. 8. With respect to the contention of non-furnishing of the copies of some documents it has been stated that the copies of the documents which were not furnished to the petitioner were not much relevant as there was no dispute regarding the stock of jute in totality. It has, therefore, been contended that non-supply of stock reconciliation statement did not prejudice the petitioner. Moreover, the stock register and relevant fortnightly stock statement were made available to the petitioner and as such he could have easily drawn the required details from the same. It has been further contended that the petitioner did not seek for the copies of the deposition of the witnesses which were recorded during the preliminary enquiry and the same fact would be evident from the proceedings dated July 7, 1992. Therefore, there is no scope to say that the petitioner was prejudiced for non-supply of the copies of the deposition of the witnesses who were examined during preliminary enquiry. With respect to the contention of non-examination of Mr. A.K.Baruah as defence witness it is stated that Mr. Baruah was not willing to depose as defence witness and that the charge-sheeted witness Shri Benu Majumdar, the carrying contractor was not available Thus, it has been contended by the respondents that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. There is no dispute that out of two charges as mentioned above the Enquiry Officer made the finding that charge No. 1 was not proved be yond doubt. The disciplinary authority, namely, Chairman-cum-Managing Director ac cepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 9. There is no dispute that out of two charges as mentioned above the Enquiry Officer made the finding that charge No. 1 was not proved be yond doubt. The disciplinary authority, namely, Chairman-cum-Managing Director ac cepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. But he -proposed to impose the penalty of discontinuation of petitioner's Traineeship as the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charge No. 2. It was stated by the Enquiry Officer that Charge No. 2 was proved beyond doubt. 10. The first contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are contradictory mainly because if charge No. 1 is found to have been not proved then there is no scope to make a finding that charge No. 2 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that the question which is required to be determined is whether the petitioner made false entries or not. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary at this stage to set out charge No. 1 which reads :- "CHARGE 1: That Shri Angshuman Das-gupta, Trainee Jr. Inspector while working as Incharge at Ambassa Storage Centre under Agartala RO, Jute Corporation of India Ltd., during the period from December 3, 1986 to December 15, 1986 (up to 9 a.m.) of 1986-87 purchase season, had allegedly purchased two lorry load of Mesta on December 12, 1986, at Ambassa Storage Centre from some local traders in an irregular and unauthorised manner. It is alleged that by his aforesaid acts of purchase of Mesta in an irregular and unauthorised manner, Shri Angshuman Dasgupta, Trainee Jr. Inspector had exhibited dishonesty with mala fide intention to gain illegal pecuniary benefit out of the business of the Corporation and thereby he had committed major misconduct in terms of Rule 5B(1) and 5B(5) of the JCI Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980". 12. It would be quite apparent from the above quoted charge that the allegation against the petitioner was that during the period starting from December 3, 1986 to December 15, 1986, he purchased two lorry loads of Mesta on December 12, 1986 at Ambassa in an irregular and unauthorised manner. Admittedly, this charge was notproved. 13. The charge No. 2 is as under:- "CHARGE II: That Shri Angshuman Dasgupta, Trainee Jr. Admittedly, this charge was notproved. 13. The charge No. 2 is as under:- "CHARGE II: That Shri Angshuman Dasgupta, Trainee Jr. Inspector while working as Incharge at Ambassa Storage Centre under Agartala RO, Jute Corporation of India MLtd. during the period from December 3, 1986 to December 15, 1986 (up to 9 a.m.) of 1986-87 purchase season, had allegedly recorded in the books of the Ambassa Storage Centre, receipt of two consignments of Mesta shown to have been despatched from Bishramganj sub-centre by Shri Anjan Kr.Das, Ex-Jr. Inspector, (since removed from the services of the JCI) under two fictitious lorry challans bearing Nos. 30072 dated December 12, 1986 for 60.15 qtls. per lorry No. TRL 2269 and No. 30073 dated December 12,1986 for 54.50 qtls. per lorry No. TRL 2964, whereas, it reveals that actually there was no despatch of the consignments under the aforesaid two lorry challans from Bishramganj sub-centre to Ambassa Storage Centre and no such consignments were physically received by Shri Angshuman Dasgupta, Trainee Jr. Inspector at Ambassa Storage Centre under the said two challans for lorry No. TRL 2269 and TRL 2964. It is alleged that by his aforesaid acts, Shri Angshuman Dasgupta, Trainee Jr. Inspector had indulged into falsification of office records and exhibited dishonesty with mala fide intention to gain illegal pecuniary benefit put of the business of the Corporation which is prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation and thereby he had committed major misconduct in terms of Rule 5B(1) and 5B(5) of the JCI Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980." 14. It will appear from the above quoted charge that there was no despatch of consignment of Mesta per lorry No. TRL2269 and TRL 2964 on December 12, 1986 for 60.15 qtls. and 54.50 qtls. respectively. But the petitioner falsified the. challans and showed in the records at Ambassa that such consignments of Mesta were received per Truck No. TRL 2269 and TRL 2964 under challan Nos. 30072 and 30073 respectively. It is also conceded that the stock at Ambassa Centre was found all right. The Enquiry Officer also made a specific finding to that effect. But the petitioner falsified the. challans and showed in the records at Ambassa that such consignments of Mesta were received per Truck No. TRL 2269 and TRL 2964 under challan Nos. 30072 and 30073 respectively. It is also conceded that the stock at Ambassa Centre was found all right. The Enquiry Officer also made a specific finding to that effect. That being the position, it is argued by Mr.Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioner that if charge No. 1 is not proved then there is no scope to say that the petitioner purchased Mesta from Ambassa market and stored the same in the Ambassa Godown to make necessary adjustment. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the Enquiry Officer made a specific finding under para 5.3 of his report that there was no clear evidence that Shri Angshuman Dasgupta i.e. the petitioner made the purchase. 15. But even though the Enquiry Officer made the specific finding that there was no conclusive evidence to the effect that the petitioner purchased Mesta at Ambassa he, at the conclusion of his report held that charge No. 2 against the petitioner was proved. On going through the report of the Enquiry Officer it is found that while analysing the evidence the Enquiry Officer placed reliance upon the evidence of M.W.6 owner of Lorry No. OSC 3382. The Enquiry Officer while analysing the evidence made the finding to the following effect: "M.W.6, the owner of Lorry No. OSE 3382 stated that this lorry carried local jute on December 12, 1986 at Ambassa under exchange of Rs. 500/- (M.E.I.)". 16. The true copy of the statement of M.W.6 Sadhan Ch. Ghosh is available at page 153 of the proceeding file. On going through his statement I find that this M.W.6 made a statement that during that time he was at Calcutta. His statement in this regard may be quoted as under:- "...... I purchased the lorry from Calcutta. It was transferred in my name in Calcutta and the same was registered in Tripura. The lorry got TRL No. possibly in 1988-89. Where I was staying between December 10, 1986 to December 23, 1986 has been written in my statement Calcutta................ between December 10, 1986 to December 23, 19861 was away and I heard the matter from my Driver." 17. The lorry got TRL No. possibly in 1988-89. Where I was staying between December 10, 1986 to December 23, 1986 has been written in my statement Calcutta................ between December 10, 1986 to December 23, 19861 was away and I heard the matter from my Driver." 17. The above statement of the witness clearly indicates that at the relevant time he was in Calcutta and what he stated was heard from his Driver. Admittedly his driver was not examined to confirm that he actually informed M.W.6 that the lorry carried local jute twice on December 12, 1986. The evidence of M.W.6 is, therefore, nothing but hearsay evidence and hence it cannot be relied on. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings. But so far as the above statement of M.W.6 is concerned it cannot be accepted without supporting evidence. 18. The next contention urged by Mr. Lodh is that not only copies of the statements of witnesses who were examined during preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner, but the copies of some other documents which the petitioner wanted were also not made available to him. On going through the records it is however, found that most of the documents which the petitioner wanted were supplied and some of the documents which could not have been supplied to the petitioner were also made available to his counsel for inspection. But even then it is found that some of the documents which the petitioner wanted and which the Enquiry Officer also considered to be relevant were not supplied to the petitioner before starting the recording of evidence of witnesses. As for, the Enquiry Officer started recording the evidence of M.W. 1 w.e.f. June 3, 1991 but the order dated June 5, 1991 shows that after recording the evidence of M.W.I continuously for 2 days some of the documents were made available on June 5, 1991 for inspection. The order dated June 5, 1991 further shows that the Enquiry Officer ordered the Presenting Officer to supply the additional documents for inspection to the defence counsel on or before June 7, 1991. The order dated June 7, 1991 shows that some of the documents could not be made available as those were not traced out. The order dated June 5, 1991 further shows that the Enquiry Officer ordered the Presenting Officer to supply the additional documents for inspection to the defence counsel on or before June 7, 1991. The order dated June 7, 1991 shows that some of the documents could not be made available as those were not traced out. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, by his order dated June 7, 1991 directed that those documents should be supplied at the earliest convenience. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India (UOI) (through General Manager, Eastern Railways), AIR 1988 SC 117 held that principles of natural justice required that the copy of the documents if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In the instant case, it is quite clear from the orders of the Enquiry Officer that some of the documents and copies of the statements of witnesses who were examined during preliminary enquiry were made available during exanimation of the witnesses. It is also not disputed that some of the statements of the witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer started recording the evidence. It cannot be disputed that for effective cross-examination the statements of the witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry ought to have been made available to the petitioner before recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the instant case, it is clear from the orders of the Enquiry Officer as mentioned above mat copies of some of the statements of the witnesses and documents were not made available before the Enquiry Officer started recording the evidence of M.W. 1. I am, therefore, of opinion that for non-supply of copies of such documents prejudiced the delinquent officer and consequently the enquiry is vitiated. 20. The next contention urged by Mr. Lodh is that Bern Majumdar, the carrying contractor was the most material witness in this case as admittedly the defence case was that his trucks carried the alleged two loads of Masta from Bishramganj to Ambassa and that he was also paid the carrying charge. This witness was cited in the charge-sheet as one of the prosecution witnesses. But he was not examined. This witness was cited in the charge-sheet as one of the prosecution witnesses. But he was not examined. He is a material witness by reason of the fact that M.W. 1 while answering to the question No. 184 clearly stated that the bill was prepared and paid. Similarly, M.W.5 Mr. A.K. Khastagir, who deposed that the challans Nos. 30072 and 30073 were fictitious also stated that transportation charges corresponded to these challans and the transportation charges was also paid to Benu Majumdar who was engaged as carrying contractor. The defence wanted to cross-examine this carrying contractor but this witness was not made available. 21. It is also found that the petitioner cited Shri A.K. Baruah as defence witness. But Shri A.K.Baruah was not brought on the ground that Shri A.K. Baruah declined to give evidence. I am of the view that the Enquiry Officer ought to have exhausted his powers to secure the attendance of Shri A.K.Baruah and that being not done principles of natural justice were not complied with due to failure to cause production of that witness. 22. The reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also includes an opportunity to the delinquent officer to defend himself not only by cross-examining the witness produced against him, but also by examining himself or any other witness in support of his defence. This opportunity being not made available to the petitioner the enquiry is vitiated. 23. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director dated January 12, 1994 and the enquiry report are quashed. The petitioner is to be reinstated in service and the order reinstating the petitioner in service must be carried out within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The petitioner will not, however, be entitled to get any backwages. There shall be no order as to costs.