JUDGMENT Ruma Pal, J. The appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Dum Dum Kumar Ashutosh Institution Branch (referred to as the Institution) on 26th March, 1996. On 17th October, 1996 the appellant was served with an order of suspension. The proposal of suspension was sent by the Managing Committee of the Institution to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE for short) for approval in terms of Rule 28(8) and (8a) of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government-Institutions (Aided & Unaided) Rules, 1969 (referred to as the Management Rules). The WBBSE disapproved the suspension and communicated the disapproval to the Institution on 17th December, 1996. 2. The Institution challenged the disapproval order of the WBBSE by way of a Writ Petition (W.P. No. 60 of 1997: Durgadas Mukhopadhyay vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.). An interim order was passed on 2nd May, 1997 staying the disapproval order of the WBBSE. The writ application is still pending. 3. In the meanwhile on 21st December, 1996 a charge sheet was drawn up by the Institution against the appellant. The charge sheet was sent to the appellant on 16th January, 1997. 4. On 25th July, 1997 the Institution intimated the appellant that one Shyamal Kumar Chowdhury had been appointed as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges against the appellant and that one Taraprasad Halder, Advocate had been appointed as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Managing Committee. 5. In August, 1997 the appellant filed a writ application inter alia challenging the disciplinary proceeding and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer (W.P. No. 17233 of 1997: Arun Kumar Hait vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). By an order dated 5th January, 1998 the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant to place all relevant materials, evidences, including his written statement of defence before the Inquiry Officer on 31st January, 1998. 6. On 29th January, 1998 the matter was mentioned before the Court by the appellant who submitted that it had not been possible for him to file his written statement of defence on the date fixed. The Court directed the appellant to ask the disciplinary authority for an extension of time. 7. 6. On 29th January, 1998 the matter was mentioned before the Court by the appellant who submitted that it had not been possible for him to file his written statement of defence on the date fixed. The Court directed the appellant to ask the disciplinary authority for an extension of time. 7. Instead of filing the written statement of defence the appellant filed an appeal on 7th April, 1998 from the order dated 5th January, 1998 as modified by the order dated 29th January, 1998 disposing of the writ petition. The Appellate Court was prima facie of the view that in terms of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules, disciplinary proceedings could be started only after obtaining the approval of the WBBSE to the suspension. The Appellate Court disagreed with what it stated was the view of another Division Bench in Sujit Kumar Das & Ors. vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors. reported in 1997 (2) CLJ 497 holding that even before the WBBSE approved the suspension the disciplinary proceedings could continue. According to the Appellate Court, the earlier Division Bench had failed to consider a circular dated 21st June, 1998. The matter was accordingly referred to a Larger Bench. An interim order was passed to the effect that although the inquiry proceedings could continue no proposal for any punishment of the appellant would be made and the proceedings with respect to the punishment would be kept in abeyance until further orders. 8. This Bench was specially constituted to resolve the stated dispute between the two views expressed by the two Benches. The Court formulated three questions covering the subject matter of reference, namely : 1. Whether the Managing Committee has the power to initiate or to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings once the order of suspension has been disapproved by the Board? 2. Whether the Managing Committee under Rule 28 of the 1969 Management Rules has the power to appoint an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer for the purpose of holding an inquiry either at the initial stage or at the punishment stage? 3. What is the procedure to be followed by the Managing Committee under Rule 28 of the 1969 Management Rules? Question No. 1 9. 3. What is the procedure to be followed by the Managing Committee under Rule 28 of the 1969 Management Rules? Question No. 1 9. At the outset we may state that the earlier decision of Sujit Kumar Das vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (supra) did not, in fact, hold that disciplinary proceedings could take place even if the suspension had been disapproved by the WBBSE. The issue was not before the Court at all. The decision would have some bearing on the third question framed by us. 10. The appellant's argument which was prima facie accepted by the Division Bench in this matter is that the disciplinary proceeding is initiated by the suspension and that the suspension forms the first state of the disciplinary proceeding which culminates ultimately in the order of punishment. Therefore, according to the appellant, the disapproval of a suspension means that the subsequent stages of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with. 11. The Management Rules have been framed by the WBBSE in exercise of powers under section 45(2)(d) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. Disciplinary proceedings in Secondary Schools are dealt with in Rule 28 sub-rules (8) and (8a) of the Management Rules and read : "(8) Both in aided and unaided Institutions the Committee shall have the power, subject to the prior approval of the Board, to remove or dismiss permanent or temporary teachers and other employees. For this purpose the Committee shall first draw up formal proceedings and issue charge-sheet to the teacher or the employee concerned and offer him reasonable facilities for defending himself. The teacher or the employee proposed to be proceeded against shall submit his explanation, ordinarily, within a fortnight of the receipt of the charge-sheet. The Committee shall send to the Board all relevant papers including the charge-sheet, explanations submitted by the teacher or the employee and the reasons for which the Committee decides in favour of taking disciplinary action. If the Board considers that there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action the Committee shall issue formal notice calling upon the teacher or the employee concerned to show cause, ordinarily within a fortnight why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. If the Board considers that there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action the Committee shall issue formal notice calling upon the teacher or the employee concerned to show cause, ordinarily within a fortnight why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. The Committee shall, then, send again to the Board all relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the teacher or the employee concerned and the recommendations of the Committee for the action proposed to be taken. So far as the Committee is concerned, the decision of the Board shall be final : Provided that the Board may delegate to any Committee constituted under section 24 of the Act the powers and functions conferred on the Board by this Sub-rule. (8a) In case of lapses on the part of the permanent or temporary teacher and other employees of an Institution, which do not warrant removal or dismissal of the person concerned, the Committee may impose minor penalties, like stoppage of one increment in pay, reduction of pay in the time scale and censure, with the prior approval of the Board. In all such cases, the Committee shall observe the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (8)." 12. Neither of the sub-rules provide for suspension and disciplinary proceedings are commenced with the drawing up of a formal proceeding and issuing of the charge-sheet. Rule 28(8) envisages only two stages the first commencing with the drawal of proceedings up to the sending of material to WBBSE for approval. This would include the finding of fact after offering the teacher or other employee "reasonable facilities for defending himself." The Managing Committee would have to send the charge-sheet, explanation given by the teacher or the employee and state its reasons for deciding to take disciplinary action. The Board would then have to consider whether there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action and intimate its approval/disapproval of the action proposed by the Managing Committee. 13. The second stage envisaged by Rule 28(8) commences with the Managing Committee calling upon the teacher or the employee to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. On the basis of the answer given, the Managing Committee may recommend the punishment to the Board. 13. The second stage envisaged by Rule 28(8) commences with the Managing Committee calling upon the teacher or the employee to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. On the basis of the answer given, the Managing Committee may recommend the punishment to the Board. All the papers including the explanation of the teacher or other employee and the recommendation of the committee are sent to the Board which takes a final decision in the matter. 14. These two stages are also reflected in the notification No. S/607 dated 21st June, 1982 issued by the WBBSE with regard to formalities to be followed for obtaining approval in respect of proposals for disciplinary proceedings against any member of the teaching/ non-teaching staff of secondary schools under Rule 28(8) and (8a) of the Management Rules. The prescribed procedure envisages : "1. The school management shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against any member of the teaching/non-teaching staff of the school in two stages as noted hereunder. (a) First Stage : The procedure of the "first stage" shall comprise to following ad seriatim : (i) Resolution of the Managing Committee containing the charge against the person to be proceeded against; (ii) Formal charge-sheet to be issued to the person concerned, containing the articles of charges as per resolution of the Managing Committee; (iii) Reply to the charge-sheet by the person proceeded against to be submitted to the Managing Committee ordinarily within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet; (iv) Consideration of the reply by the Managing Committee and its decision thereon, with the underlying reasons of taking such decision to be stated in detail. The school management shall thereafter, send to the Board their proposal along with attested copies of all relevant papers coming within the scope of the "first stage" above. If the Board considers there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action against the person concerned on the basis of papers submitted by the school and also papers that may be subsequently called for, if necessary, the Board will accord first approval to the school's proposal for initiating disciplinary proceeding against him/her. In all cases, the Board will acknowledge the school's letters on the subject at the earliest opportunity. In all cases, the Board will acknowledge the school's letters on the subject at the earliest opportunity. If no communication from the Board be received within one month of submission of the proposal regarding the punishment to be meted out to the teacher/non-teaching employee the school concerned will meet the Secretary of the Board along with all relevant papers within a prayer for expeditious disposal of the case. (b) Second Stage: The procedure of the second stage, if necessary, shall comprise the following ad seriatim: (i) On receipt of the Board's aforesaid approval, the Managing Committee shall issue a show cause notice, on the basis of their resolution, to the person concerned ordinarily within a fortnight, specifying the nature of the punishment proposed to be awarded to him/her as provided under Rule 28(8) or (8a). (ii) On receipt of the person's reply to the show cause notice, the Managing Committee shall consider the reply in its meeting and take a decision thereon in the form of a resolution; (iii) The school management shall thereafter forward all papers as mentioned in (i) and (ii) above, to the Board for consideration ordinarily within one month of the reply to the show cause notice, as indicated under b(ii). The Board will then consider the case in all its aspects, decide it finally and communicate its decision to the school authority for implication. The decision of the Board on the matter is final and binding upon all concerned. 2. The school management shall not remove any person from service or award any punishment without the prior approval of the Board and without following the procedure indicated under Rule 28 (8) and/or (8a) of the Management Rules as elaborated in item 1 above." 15. It is clear therefore that neither the Management Rules nor the governmental guidelines consider suspension as any part of the disciplinary proceeding. 16. The power of the Managing Committee to suspend a teacher or employee is provided for in Rule 28 (9) (viia) of the Management Rules. It is clear therefore that neither the Management Rules nor the governmental guidelines consider suspension as any part of the disciplinary proceeding. 16. The power of the Managing Committee to suspend a teacher or employee is provided for in Rule 28 (9) (viia) of the Management Rules. This statutory provision vests the Managing Committee of a school with the power : "(viia) To suspend a teacher or an employee where such suspension is in the interest of the Institution, pending drawal of proceedings against the person concerned within ninety days from the date of suspension and during the period of suspension, the person concerned shall be paid pay and allowances equal to fifty percent of the pay and allowances drawn by him immediately before such suspension. Such steps shall be referred to the Board within seven days of such action for approval. The person affected by the decision of the Committee may, however, made his/her representation to the Board. The order of suspension shall automatically stand withdrawn in case proceedings are not drawn within a period ninety days, provided that in exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be waived by the Board after due consideration of the facts of the case but under no circumstances the time limit shall be waived beyond the limit of one year." (Emphasis supplied) 17. The noteworthy features of this sub-rule are that the power of suspension is only pending drawal of proceedings and can be made in the interest of the Institution. The continuance of the suspension is however subject to the proceedings being drawn up within a period of ninety days. These factors also show that the suspension is not part of the disciplinary proceeding itself. 18. There is some ambiguity in the requirement for the Managing Committee to refer "such steps" to the Board for approval. It is not clear whether the "steps" refers' to the suspension itself or the obligatory acts regarding payment of allowance consequent upon the suspension. The WBBSE has clarified the issue by notification No. S/606 dated 21.6.82 relating to proposals for approval of suspension under Rule 28 (9) (viia) of the Management Rules. The notification inter alia provides : "1. It is not clear whether the "steps" refers' to the suspension itself or the obligatory acts regarding payment of allowance consequent upon the suspension. The WBBSE has clarified the issue by notification No. S/606 dated 21.6.82 relating to proposals for approval of suspension under Rule 28 (9) (viia) of the Management Rules. The notification inter alia provides : "1. Any proposal for approval of suspension of a member of the teaching/non-teaching staff should contain the following particulars : (a) Name and designation of the person concerned; (b) Date of appointment against a sanctioned post; (c) Date of order of suspension; (d) Copy of the resolution of the Managing Committee recommending such suspension; (e) Information about the payment of subsistence allowance to the person concerned; (f) Whether there is any previous record of suspension and/or punishment against him, if so give details; 3. The order of suspension shall normally be issued to a member of the teaching/non-teaching staff under Rule 28(9)(viia) when his/her presence in the school is deemed likely to prejudice the proper conduct of inquiry into the charges brought or to be brought against him/her. 4. Proceedings containing the articles of charges shall be drawn up against a suspended person within 90 (ninety) days from the date of his/her suspension on the basis of a resolution of the Managing Committee and communicated to him/her without fail. 5. If such proceedings be not drawn up within 90 (ninety) days, the order of suspension shall automatically stand withdrawn as per provision of Rule 28(9)(viia) of the Management Rules." 19. It needs to be emphasized that the broad base for ordering suspension under Rule 28(9)(viia) namely, the interest of the Institution is sought to be exemplified in the notification No. S/606 by providing for suspension not only before the charges are framed but also after the charges have been framed provided the inquiry at either stage is likely to be hampered by the continued presence of the teacher/employee. Therefore, under the Management Rules the suspension is either preparatory to disciplinary proceedings or ancillary to or in aid of the disciplinary proceedings. Suspension is not a sine qua non of disciplinary proceedings and may not at all be taken recourse to by the School Authorities disciplinary proceedings against a teacher/employee. 20. Therefore, under the Management Rules the suspension is either preparatory to disciplinary proceedings or ancillary to or in aid of the disciplinary proceedings. Suspension is not a sine qua non of disciplinary proceedings and may not at all be taken recourse to by the School Authorities disciplinary proceedings against a teacher/employee. 20. The contents of the proposal sent by the Managing Committee for approval by the WBBSE as specified in the notification No. S/606 do not include the merits of the proposed disciplinary action. The WBBSE in granting or refusing the proposed suspension is limited to seeing whether the objects sought to be achieved by the suspension namely, the interest of the Institution or an unhampered inquiry, either exist or would in fact require the suspension of the teacher/employee. There is no scope for any decision on the merits of the proposed disciplinary proceedings by the WBBSE at all. 21. It would follow that an approval of an order of suspension cannot be taken as a finding of guilt nor a disapproval of the proposed suspension mean that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be commenced and proceeded with. 22. We would therefore answer the first question in the affirmative. Question No. 2 23. As far as question 2 is concerned, it has been argued that as the rules do not specifically provide for the appointment of an Inquiry Officer by the Managing Committee this is a case of casus omissus which the Courts cannot fill in or read into by a process of interpretation. It is contended that whenever the power of inquiry is permitted to be delegated in connection with disciplinary proceedings, this has been invariably provided for in the relevant rules. For example Rule 1710 of the Manual of Railway Laws which is contained in the Chapter on imposition of major penalties, provides that the Disciplinary Authority may enquire into the charges itself or if it considers necessary, it may, either at the time of communicating the charges to the railway servant under Rule 1709 or at any time thereafter, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiry Officer for the purpose, which will be termed as the "Inquiring Authority". Similarly, Rule 153.2.1 framed under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 also provides for the enquiry to be held either by the Disciplinary Authority itself or by appointing an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the member charged but not below the rank of Inspector or by instituting a Court of Inquiry to enquire into the truth thereof. Similar rules also are provided in the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and the West Bengal Services (Duties, Rights and Obligation of the Government Employees) Rules, 1980. 24. The principle of casus omissus is that a statute may not be extended to meet a case for which provision has clearly and undoubtedly not been made [Craies on Statutes (7th Edn.) page 69] or as stated by Lord Attkinson in London and India Docks Co. vs. Thames Steam Tug etc. Co. [1909] AC 15 at page 23. "The intention of the legislature, however obvious it may be, must no doubt in the construction of statutes be defeated where the language it has chosen compels to that result, but only where it compels it." 25. There is no such compelling language in Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules with regard to the holding of inquiry. In fact Rule 28(8) itself does not lay down any requirement for conducting the enquiry. All it says is that the Managing Committee shall offer the teacher or employee “reasonable facilities for defending himself”. The phrase is ambiguous. Notification S/607, quoted earlier, does not take the matter any further. It provides for 'consideration' of the reply of the teacher or employee in answer to the charge-sheet by the Managing Committee. Where the language of the statutory provision is not plain and is ambiguous, as in this case, the principle of casus omissus does not apply and the Court is bound to construe the provision to give effect to the legislative intent. The legislative intent in this case is to ensure that the delinquent gets a fair opportunity of defending himself in respect of the charges levelled against him. Any procedure which does this may therefore be adopted. 26. It is nobody's case that the Managing Committee cannot hold an inquiry as to whether the charges or the defence are established. The legislative intent in this case is to ensure that the delinquent gets a fair opportunity of defending himself in respect of the charges levelled against him. Any procedure which does this may therefore be adopted. 26. It is nobody's case that the Managing Committee cannot hold an inquiry as to whether the charges or the defence are established. In fact suspension of the delinquent under Rule 28(9)(viia) read with Notification No. S/606 may be resorted to so as not to 'prejudice the proper conduct of inquiry into the charges brought'. 27. Neither the Management Rules nor the notifications provide that the enquiry must be held by the Managing Committee. The fact that the appointment of an Inquiry Officer is statutorily provided for in some cases indicates that the procedure is statutorily recognised as a "reasonable opportunity" for a delinquent to defend himself. The appointment of an Inquiry Officer to ascertain the truth of the allegation cannot therefore be said either beyond the competence of the Managing Committee or not within the scope of the mandate cast by Rule 28(8) on the Managing Committee. 28. The question raised is in any event not res integra. In the case of Pradyut Kumar Bose vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court : 1955 (2) SCR 1331 the Supreme Court had to consider the argument that even if the Chief Justice had the power to dismiss an employee, he was not in exercise of that power, competent to delegate to another Judge the power to enquire into the charges but should have made the enquiry himself. In rejecting this argument the Supreme Court said : "But the exercise of the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is the exercise not of a judicial power but of an administrative power. It is nonetheless so, by reason of the fact that an opportunity to show cause and an enquiry simulating judicial standards have to precede the exercise thereof. It is well recognised that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. What cannot be delegated except where the law specifically so provides is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power." 29. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. What cannot be delegated except where the law specifically so provides is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power." 29. The Privy Council's decision in University of Ceylon vs. Fernando : 1960 All E.R. 631 is to a similar effect. “The clause is silent as to the procedure to be followed by the Vice-Chancellor in satisfying himself of the truth or falsity of a given allegation. If the clause contained any special directions in regard to the steps to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor in the process of satisfying himself he would, of course, be bound to follow those directions. But as no special form of procedure is prescribed, it is for him to determine the procedure to be followed as he thinks best, but to adapt to the present case the language of the judgment of this Board in De Verteuil vs. Knaggs ([1918] AC P. 560), subject to the obvious implication that some form of inquiry must be made, such as will enable him fairly to determine whether he should hold himself satisfied that the charge in question has been made out. As was said by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Local Government Board vs. Arlidge ([1915] AC at p. 138), of the authority there concerned it ‘must do its best to act justly, and to reach just ends by just means. If a statute prescribes the means it must employ them. If it is left without express guidance it must still act honestly and by honest means’.” 30. The Supreme Court has also held in Workmen in Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras vs. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras : 1970 (1) LLJ 26 that where the statutory standing order provided for enquiry by the Mill Manager, the Mill Manager had the jurisdiction to delegate the function to another Officer to record the evidence. (see also A.S. Selhi vs. Union of India : AIR 1968 Del 26 (DB); Sri Calcutta Sink vs. Baranas Hindu University : AIR 1960 All. 531 (DB). 31. We answer this question in the affirmative. However the power of delegation cannot be exercised arbitrarily. (see also A.S. Selhi vs. Union of India : AIR 1968 Del 26 (DB); Sri Calcutta Sink vs. Baranas Hindu University : AIR 1960 All. 531 (DB). 31. We answer this question in the affirmative. However the power of delegation cannot be exercised arbitrarily. All these decisions contemplate that (1) the person appointed must be responsible and competent; (2) the bona fides of both the delegator and delegatee are established; (3) the delegatee must follow the principles of natural justice by giving the persons concerned an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses and to present his evidence fairly and; (4) the authority concerned must itself apply its mind to the report of the Enquiry Officer and arrive independently at a conclusion after such consideration as to the guilt or innocence of the person enquired against. Re: Question No. 3 32. To a large extent this question has been answered in connection with the previous two question. It follows from the earlier discussion that there are two overlapping procedures one express and the other implicit which are required to be followed by the Managing Committee in the initiation, holding and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 28(8) of the 1969 Management Rules. The express procedure provides the basic skeleton which is "fleshed out", as it were, by the implicit procedural requirements. 33. The express procedure is specifically provided by Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules as clarified by the notifications issued by the WBBSE. Although we have dealt with the express steps envisaged in connection with the first two questions framed, nevertheless it would be convenient to recapitulate the same briefly for the purpose of this question. The first stage of disciplinary proceeding requires the Managing Committee to : (i) drew formal proceedings; (ii) issue a charge-sheet to the delinquent; (iii) offer the delinquent reasonable facilities for defending himself; (iv) grant the delinquent an opportunity to submit his explanation within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of the charge-sheet; (v) consider and take a decision on the basis of the material; (vi) send all relevant papers including the charge-sheet, explanations submitted by the delinquent and the reasons for the decision to the WBBSE. If the Board approves the decision of the Managing Committee to take disciplinary action, the second stage of the disciplinary proceeding commences. If the Board approves the decision of the Managing Committee to take disciplinary action, the second stage of the disciplinary proceeding commences. At this stage the Managing Committee must : (a) issue a show cause to the delinquent ordinarily within fortnight why he should not be dismissed or removed from service; (b) give the delinquent an opportunity to submit an explanation; (c) take a decision on the action proposed to be taken; (d) send all relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the delinquent, as well as the recommendation for the action proposed to be taken to the Board. If the Board approves the decision of the Committee with regard to the action proposed, the Managing Committee can remove or dismiss the delinquent. 34. The implicit rules of procedure which complement the express procedure follow from the phrase in Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules which requires the Managing Committee to offer the delinquent "reasonable facilities for defending himself." In other words, the procedure adopted must conform to the principles of natural justice but ultimately "the test is one of prejudice i.e. whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things." 35. The procedures which have been considered sufficient compliance with the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of defence have been laid down in Institute of Chartered Accountants in India vs. L.K. Ratna : AIR 1987 SC 719; State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma : AIR 1996 SC 1669 ; Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar : AIR 1994 SC 1074 and Sujit Kumar Das vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education : 1972(2) CLJ 497. 36. Briefly speaking these would include as far as the first stage is concerned, the giving of a clear charge-sheet; provisions of facilities for inspection and/or taking copies of the documents upon which the Managing Committee relies; granting an opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Managing Committee and the right to examine witnesses in his favour. 37. The implicit procedure also includes the right of the Managing Committee to delegate the function to hold the enquiry after the charges have been framed and served on the delinquent to an independent person [see answer to question 2 (supra)]. 38. 37. The implicit procedure also includes the right of the Managing Committee to delegate the function to hold the enquiry after the charges have been framed and served on the delinquent to an independent person [see answer to question 2 (supra)]. 38. However, when the matter is so delegated, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority takes any decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. As held in Managing Director, ECIL vs. Karunakar ( AIR 1994 SC 1074 ): "The reason why the right to receive the report of the Enquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer from an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the Enquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the enquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Enquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute an additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the Enquiry Officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which mayor may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Enquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Enquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it." 39. This view has been reiterated recently by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra: (1998) 7 SCC 84 . 40. If the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the Enquiry Officer and comes to a different conclusion, the disciplinary authority must record its tentative reasoning and give the same to the delinquent so that he has an opportunity to represent against such tentative reason and to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer [See: Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra (supra)]. 41. The Managing Committee must then take a decision by recording its reasons which should indicate how it came to the conclusion for taking disciplinary action against the delinquent and such reasons must be supplied by the Managing Committee to the delinquent. 42. Similarly in the second stage, after the delinquent is given the opportunity of responding to the proposed punishment, the Managing Committee must give its reasons in support of the proposed punishment and supply the same to the delinquent. 43. 42. Similarly in the second stage, after the delinquent is given the opportunity of responding to the proposed punishment, the Managing Committee must give its reasons in support of the proposed punishment and supply the same to the delinquent. 43. Finally, the WBBSE would have to grant or refuse approval of the decisions of the Managing Committee at both stages on the basis of the materials on record without considering any document not supplied to the delinquent. 44. By the order of reference the merits of this appeal were placed before this Court for disposal. In view of the answers given to the questions above, clearly the writ petition cannot be sustained. In addition, it appears from the order of the Learned Single Judge that the appellant had prayed for time to appear before the Inquiry Officer. That being so the appellant is estopped from questioning the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. We are also not called upon to decide whether the Enquiry Officer is incompetent or otherwise biased as no allegation has been made against him. 45. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the reference is disposed of as above. M.H.S. Ansari, J.: I agree Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.