JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of his dismissal from service. He was Assistant Godown Manager in the Biscomaun. Copy of the order has been marked Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Godown Manager at Bibhutipur in the district of Samastipur. It is said that pursuant to a general direction of the Administrator the Anchal Adhikari of Bibhutipur made physical verification of stock in the godown on 22.8.88. He did not find any discrepancy. It is said that the Range Officer of Biscomaun at Samastipur made an inspection on his own on 24th August, 1988 at 7 P.M. He found certain discrepancy in the stock. The god owns are said to have been inspected again by a team of officers headed by Sr. Range Officer, Darbhanga between 28th August and 30th August, 1988. The officers too did not find any discrepancy in the stock. 3. On 13.10.88 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Sri T.K. Sinha, Executive Director was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He submitted his report on 10th March, 1989. On 21.8.89 the impugned order was passed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence and defend himself and there has been violation of rules of natural justice. He submitted that if the respondents wanted to award major penalty to the petitioner they should have held fullfledged departmental enquiry. What has been done in the instant case is that the said Enquiry Officer examined the reports, called the petitioner for interview and thereafter submitted his report. Counsel for the respondents submitted that bye-laws do not provide for any departmental proceeding akin to Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, applicable in the case of Government servents. Therefore, in the absence of any laid-down procedure for conducting the departmental proceeding the Court has merely to see whether the rules of natural justice have been violated. According to the counsel, opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner. Counsel contended that it was open to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies as pointed out in the reports which he failed to do. Therefore no error can be found with the impugned order. According to the counsel, opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner. Counsel contended that it was open to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies as pointed out in the reports which he failed to do. Therefore no error can be found with the impugned order. He also submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been punished on the charge of embzzlement this Court should not exercise its discretion and interfere in the matter. 5. I have considered the submissions for the counsel for the parties. I have also perused the enquiry report, copy whereof has been marked Annexure 6 to the writ petition. From the report it appears that the enquiry officer noticed the aforesaid three inspection reports and thereafter directed the petitioner to appear. He thereafter called certain clarifications from the Range Officer and Sr. Range Officer. On the basis of the explanation given by the petitioner and the so-called clarification given by the officers, behind back of the petitioners, he recorded his findings on 10.3.89 and forwarded the same to the Administrator. Copies of the communications received from Range/Senior Range Officer were not furnished to the petitioner and he was not allowed any opportunity to explain the same. Since the order is based on materials not known to the petitioner I find substance in the contention of the petitioner that there has been violation of natural justice. Further, in my opinion, if the respondents wanted to impose major punishment they should have held a regular enquiry and given liberty to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. If they wanted to rely on any report or material which was obtained after the submission of the show cause and explanation orally furnished by the petitioner, in all fairness, copies should have been given to him so that he could explain them. In the above premises, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 is set aside. There will be no order as to cost. 7. Since the petitioner had approached this Court after two and a half years (he filed the writ petition on 29.1.92) he will not be entitled to salary for the intervening period between 21.8.89 and 21.1.92.