ORDER : The writ petition is filed seeking an appropriate writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent he rein to change the second respondent i.e., B.K. Namdeo, Enquiry Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha Refinery, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, the present Enquiry Officer, preferably an officer other than the Officers of the first respondent Management after calling for the records and also the other appropriate reliefs. 2. The petitioner was appointed as the Junior Operation Technician in the year 1994and he was promoted as Operation Technician in the year 1997 and he has been working as Operation Technician till to-day. It is also averred in the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the workers formed Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Employees Union with registeredNo.1706/98 and the petitioner was elected as General Secretary of the said Union in1998 for a period of two years and the said Union is affiliated to C.I.T.U. It is submitted that on 24-4-2000 one worker N.CH.K. Acharyulu, who was working as an Instrumentation Technician in Maintenance Department be came unconscious and fell down as he had been called to Instrumentation room and he was threatened. It was also stated that he should go to the Crued Distillation Unit No. 3which was a new project and the said worker requested to train him to work in the new Unit. But the management threatened that he would be suspended from service and after coming from the said room, he fell down in the Instrumentation section and he was shifted to refinery dispensary and the doctor told that he must be kept in observation for a period of 24 hours and the petitioner was not on duty on that day and coming to know about the same, he went to the dispensary and saw the said worker. Some of the workers out of anxiety also visited the dispensary. It was also further stated that it is the usual practice to hold gate meetings in the recess times and the petitioner held gate meetings and the other Union leaders also used to hold gate meetings in the recess times. Some of the workers out of anxiety also visited the dispensary. It was also further stated that it is the usual practice to hold gate meetings in the recess times and the petitioner held gate meetings and the other Union leaders also used to hold gate meetings in the recess times. It was further stated that the petitioner held a meeting on24-4-2000 and explained to the workers that unless training is given to operate in the new unit, it will be difficult to operate the same and if any mistake is committed in operating the new unit, the workers will be held liable. Therefore, a request was made to the management to impart training before the workers are transferred to the newly established unit. The said incident of the worker falling down in the factory was even reported in the local press. It was also further stated that the management issued charge sheet-cum-suspension order on4-5-2000 and the petitioner submitted explanation for the above charges on 22-5-2000 and the second respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was started on 7-6-2000 and the witnesses were examined on 18-7-2000. It is averred that the Presenting Officer started examining the witnesses by putting leading questions and asking them to say "yes' or" no' and the petitioner raised an objection on26-7-2000. Inspite of the objection, the Enquiry Officer had not asked the Presenting Officer to desist from putting leading questions to the Presenting Officer. But, unfortunately, the same procedure of putting leading questions had been continued and subsequent thereto also the petitioner had raised the same objection. The same procedure was followed during the course of enquiry. The petitioner submitted a representation on 3-10-2000 requesting forde novo enquiry, as the enquiry so far conducted was unfair, unjust, partisan and opposed to the principles of natural justice. Inspite of the same, the Enquiry Officer had not taken the steps to prevent the putting of leading questions by the Presenting Officer and hence, the writ petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. The material allegations had been specifically denied. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. The material allegations had been specifically denied. It was specifically stated that, in fact, during the proceedings of the enquiry, the petitioner was clarified that he is at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses and accordingly, the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses by adopting question answer method and hence, the method of examining witnesses is not at all against the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. It was also stated that assuming, without admitting, that the leading questions were put to the witnesses. It is submitted that, in fact, Indian Evidence Act, which defines the leading questions and also provides for situation where leading questions should not be asked, is not at all applicable to the domestic proceedings as has been held by various judicial pronouncements. It was also stated that there is no bar in putting the leading questions and the petitioner having participated in the departmental enquiry by cross-examining the defence witnesses cannot have any grievance in this regard, which is made out only to maintain the writ petition and to obtain some relief from this Honourable Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A specific stand was taken that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in this regard. 4. Sri Nuthalapati Krishnamurthy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had drawn my attention to the record note of eleventh session of enquiry into the charges levelled against the writ petitioner' and had pointed out the nature of leading questions put and also had drawn my attention to the objections raised by the writ petitioner in this regard. The learned Counsel also had contended that though the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to a domestic enquiry, definitely the principles underlying the same are to be followed since such enquiry has to be conducted in conformity with the fair play and also the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the detailed representation made on 3-10-2000 raising objection on the irregular process of conducting domestic enquiry. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the detailed representation made on 3-10-2000 raising objection on the irregular process of conducting domestic enquiry. The learned Counsel also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case justice will not be done if the second respondent is continued as Enquiry Officer and hence, the learned Counsel also made a request for change of the Enquiry Officer. 5. Sri P.B. Vijayakumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had contended that absolutely there is noviolation of principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel also had produced the record note of the session of enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner and had pointed out that, in fact, no leading questions causing prejudice to the petitioner had been put. Apart from it, except the allegation that certain leading questions were put, there are no allegations or any mala fide made against the Enquiry Officer. Apart from it, the learned Counsel also had strenuously contended that too much of legalism cannot be imported and all the technicalities of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act need not be necessarily followed in the case of a domestic enquiry. The learned Counsel also further contended that even otherwise, whether the questions are leading questions or not and whether such questions had really caused prejudice or in fact had vitiated the very enquiry itself these are all matters to be decided not at the stage of the conduct of enquiry and at this stage only with a view to stall further proceedings of the enquiry, the present writ petition was thought of by the writ petitioner. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Managing Director, M.M.W.S. and S. Board v. R. Rajan : 1996 (1) SLR 29 , Union of India v. Upendra Singh : 1994 (68) FLR 762 and also Firestone T and R.Co. v. Workmen : 1968 AIR SC 236. 6. Heard both the Counsel at length and perused the material available on record. The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel of the writ petitioner is that putting leading questions and the Enquiry Officer has not taken care to see that such leading questions are not put during the course of enquiry, whether such procedure will amount to violation of principles of natural justice or not. The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel of the writ petitioner is that putting leading questions and the Enquiry Officer has not taken care to see that such leading questions are not put during the course of enquiry, whether such procedure will amount to violation of principles of natural justice or not. No doubt, Section 141of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dealing with leading questions specifies 'any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question'-. Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically says that leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a reexamination, except with the permission of the Court. It is also provided that the Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. The present writ petition is filed questioning the procedure followed in the case of a domestic enquiry. In Firestone T. and R. Co.'s case (3 supra) while dealing with putting of leading questions in a domestic enquiry and propriety relating thereto, it was held that too much legalism cannot be expected from a domestic enquiry. It may be that the principles underlying the Indian Evidence Act also may have to be followed to the limited extent to see that the principles of fair play and the principles of natural justice are not violated while conducting a domestic enquiry. As rightly contended by Sri P.B. Vijay kumar these are all aspects, which are more factual in nature and all these aspects cannot be gone into by the Writ Court at this stage. In Union of India case (2 supra) it was held by the Apex Court that the Tribunal ought not to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings at an interlocutory stage and cannot go in to correctness or truth of charges and the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if charges framed, can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents also had placed strong reliance on Managing Director, M.M.W.S. and S. Board's case (1 supra) in this regard. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents also had placed strong reliance on Managing Director, M.M.W.S. and S. Board's case (1 supra) in this regard. In the light of the settled position, the Writ Court normally cannot stall the further proceedings in the domestic enquiry especially where the only ground raised by the writ petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer had not taken care to see that putting of leading questions is avoided. It is pertinent to note that every leading question which may be of general nature or introductory nature, necessarily need not cause prejudice so as to vitiate the very enquiry itself. At any rate, these are all questions to be decided at the appropriate stage and hence, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit matter to stall the further proceedings of the enquiry at this stage. It is also brought to my notice that several witnesses had already been examined. Apart from this aspect of the matter, no mala fidies are attributed to the Enquiry Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.