V. Dutta Gyani, C.J. (Acting)— This writ appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.2,95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.3080 of 1993, thereby quashing the dismissal order dated 1.4.89 (Annexure XII to the writ petition) passed against the writ petitioner/respondent by the appellant. University. 2. Few basic facts may now be noted. The writ petitioner/respondent at the material time was serving as a Store Keeper of the stores in Planning and Construction Branch under the University Engineer (respondent No.4 in the Civil Rule). By order dated 2.4.85 he was put under suspension, which was followed by serving the charge sheet on 18.7.85. The nature of charges against the writ petitioner/respondent were misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner/respondent submitted his explanation in writing on 9.8.85 denying the allegations. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and on completion thereof the writ petitioner/respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 1.4.89, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, as already noted above, allowed the writ petition quashing the order of dismissal. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned senior counsel, Mr. SN Bhuyan, appearing for the appellant-University raised the following points. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the delinquent was not provided reasonable opportunity of hearing is erroneous and not supportable by record. According to him all reasonable opportunity to defend was intact extended to the writ petitioner/respondent, so much so, he had even cross examined the witnesses. Learned Single Judge has misinterpreted Rule 9 (9) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and misapplied the same to the facts of the present case. According to him, there was no violation of Rule 9 and as such the finding that Rule 9 (9) was violated is not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so, in face of the fact that the appellant had contended that the writ petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect and examine the records and this contention has not been examined in its proper perspective. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are well supported by facts as found to have been established and well reasoned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are well supported by facts as found to have been established and well reasoned. It does not call for any interference and the appeal should, therefore, be dismissed. 5. The whole controversy veers round the provision referred to in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 more particularly the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules. The application of the said Rules in the Dibrugarh University is an admitted position. The Rules are designed to ensure a fair deal to the delinquent officer whose rights are going to be affected. Fair play in action is a means to attain the ends of justice. The cardinal and paramount objective underlined the scheme of the Rules to ensure a fair hearing and to secure that there is no failure of justice. The avowed object is the attainment of justice. Justice means fairness to both the parties. The essentials of fairness in action is described by Prof Wade in the following manner hi his 'Adminitrative Law' (6th Edition): "The right to a fair hearing has thus been used by the Courts as a base on which to build a kind of code of fair administrative procedure, comparable to 'due process of law' under the Constitution of the United States. As already mentioned, there has been an outburst of such activity since 1963, when the landmark decision of the House of Lords in Ridge vs. Baldwin put an end to a period of judicial backsliding.... ... Even where an order of determination is unchallengable as regards it substance, the Court can atleast control the preliminary procedure so as to require fair consideration of both sides of the case. Nothing is more likely to conduce to good administration...." 6. A reasonable oportunity to the deliquent officer to defend himself against charges levelled against him, presupposes that the charges must not be vague or indefinite, (2) statement of allegations must be furnished to the delinquent, (3) documents required for cross examination should be supplied. In order to show that a reasonable opportunity has been denied, the delinquent must show that the documents were relevant for the purpose of cross examining the witnesses. In order to show that a reasonable opportunity has been denied, the delinquent must show that the documents were relevant for the purpose of cross examining the witnesses. If the request for summoning documents itself is found to be vague or not related to the issues involved in the inquiry, non summoning or non production of such documents would not amount to violation of a reasonable opportunity or principles of natural justice. A delinquent official is entitled to summon defence witnesses and to lead evidence in defence and the Inquiry Officer is duty bound to summon such witnesses. 7. While it cannot be disputed that a delinquent servant should be affdrded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the opportunity contemplated is 'reasonable', not fanciful or vexatious. There must be fair play in action, as rightly observed by learned Single Judge. 8. The scheme of Rule 9 of the Rules intended to provide a fair procedure and to ensure compliance of elementary rules of natural justice, but this compliance is not something like a rigid formula of universal application. It can vary in a given case if the circumstances so demand. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 itself provided that the disciplinary inquiry contemplated under the Rules should be in the manner as provided in the following sub-sections. The use of the expression 'as far as may be' is not redundant, it is with a purpose. In a given situation there can be a slight variation or departure in the holding of a disciplinary inquiry. It is not every departure from the Rule which would result in violation of rules of natural justice. It is the spirit of these Rules, without a rigid mechanical adherence, that is what is required to be followed. As already seen above, every possible objection has come from the delinquent servant as regards non supply of documents after commencement of inquiry. However, in this reply to the charge sheet, there is not even a whisper of the same. The expression 'as far as may be' means that the principle is to be followed unless it is not possible to follow it in the particular circumstances of a case. It can also be interpreted to mean that in its operation the Rule, or certain provision or part thereof, can in a given situation be excluded or varied. 9. The expression 'as far as may be' means that the principle is to be followed unless it is not possible to follow it in the particular circumstances of a case. It can also be interpreted to mean that in its operation the Rule, or certain provision or part thereof, can in a given situation be excluded or varied. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University has placed reliance, on two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, State of Tamil Nadu vs. Thiru KV Perumal & others, reported in 1996 (2) SC Services Law Judgments 113 and State of Punjab & others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, reported in 1996 (2) SC Sercies Law Judgments 138 (as Well as in Supreme Today, Part 106-1996 (5) 187) and the judgment in State of UP & others vs. Nand Kishore Shukla & another, (1996) 3 Supreme Today 242. 10. Thiru KV Perumal (supra) was an appeal against the judgment of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the appeal on four grounds viz, (I) that the charges were vague; (2) that the appointment of Inquiry Officer was itself illegal inasmuch as the person appointed as Inquiry Officer was himself a witness against the respondent; (3) the failure to supply the documents asked for by the respondent amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and; (4) the charges levelled against the respondent could not be said to have been established on the material before the Inquiry Officer/disciplinary authority. In the aforementioned case, the learned counsel for the respondents-civil servant did not seek to support the grounds referred to in (1) and (2). The Supreme Court also set aside the fourth ground on the consideration that the aforesaid area did not belong to the province of the Tribunal in ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the charges as the Tribunal was not sitting as an appellate authority over the departmental authorities. 11. Nand Kishore Shukla is a decision on facts. One of the charges in the said case was relating to the sale of properties to private persons and also purchase of properties by the delinquent officer, which were admitted. According to the explanation as offered by the said respondent, he sought for oral permission and pursuant thereto he had sold the properties. One of the charges in the said case was relating to the sale of properties to private persons and also purchase of properties by the delinquent officer, which were admitted. According to the explanation as offered by the said respondent, he sought for oral permission and pursuant thereto he had sold the properties. The Supreme Court on consideration of facts held that under the proviso any transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular and reputed dealer requires the previous sanction of the appropriate authority. In mat context the Supreme Court observed that "it is a settled law that the. Court is not a Court of appeal to go into the question if imposition of punishment. It is settled law that even one of the charges, if held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority, the Court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order." 12. The case of Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra) is also a case on facts. 13. The relevant rules contemplates of affording of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer. Reasonable opportunity consists of twin element viz (a) opportunity to be heard and (b) such opportunity must be just, reasonable and meaningful. What is reasonable and fair would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The rule requires recording of evidence upon the charge and therefore the charged officer must be given the opportunity of adducing all evidence on which he relies, the evidence of the opponent is required to be taken in his presence and the delinquent officer must be given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined or relied upon by the opponent. The material documents, which are relevant for the purpose of effective exercise of those rights ought not be withheld from such person. Mr. Bhuyan the learned senior counsel fairly agreed with the proposition. The learned senior counsel Mr. Bhuyan, when he was confronted with the materials on record, honestly conceded that there was infraction of law in not affording the opportunity to have an access to the documents to the charged officer. 14. Considering the gravity of the charges, to our mind, an opportunity should be given to the. delinquent/writ petitioner to present his defence, but it is to be time bound. 14. Considering the gravity of the charges, to our mind, an opportunity should be given to the. delinquent/writ petitioner to present his defence, but it is to be time bound. The writ petitioner shall keep his witnesses present whose names he has already submitted to the Enquiry Officer. Those in the employment of the University will be summoned by the Enquiry Officer. So far as inspection of documents is concerned, the appellant shall afford reasonable opportunity of inspection of documents and records by the delinquent/writ petitioner, subject to of course to relevancy and relatedness of such documents and records to the charge framed against the delinquent servant. The inquiry shall commence from the stage where it was left. It is open to the University to appoint any other Enquiry Officer, if the same person who conducted the inquiry earlier is not available. The writ petitioner shall report to the Registrar of the University for inspection of documents and record on 31st March, 1997. He shall be permitted to take notes and extracts therefrom, but this inspection must be completed within three days. It shall be restricted to the documents as referred by the writ petitioner in his requests, Annexure VI, VII and VIII, subject to relevancy and relatedness of the same to the charge. On completion of inspection of documents and record, the inquiry shall proceed day-to-day unless required to be adjourned for some unforeseen and unavoidable reason: On completion of inquiry it is open to the appellant-University to proceed in the matter and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. With the above directions, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned order of dismissal, Annexure XII. The appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.