A. K. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was a constable in the Railway Protection Force. He was charge-sheeted by the authority and proceeded departmentally. The writ petitioner ultimately suffered the order of removal from service. ( 2 ) THE charges framed against the writ petitioner are quoted below;? (I) Const. 8433 M. D. Das of DPS is charged for gross mis-conduct, neglect of duty, failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an offence in that he while on duty at beat Nos. 4, 5, 6 of DPS yard from 12. 00 hrs. to 24. 00 hrs. on 29. 4. 94 some outsiders trespassed into the yard which was very much within his knowledge inasmuch as that he allowed them to commit theft of nut coke coal from the coal rake of train No. E/bspx Spl. stabled at line No. 6 within his duty hours which was subsequently seized and recovered by OC/dps on 30. 4. 94 weighing approx. about 22. 5 Qtls who Regd. case No. 5/94 date. 30. 4. 94 and thereby aided and abetted the commission of theft and has thus violated Rule 146-2 147 (XXII) of RPF Rules and Rule 3 General (I) (i) (ii) of Railway servant conduct rules 1966. (II) Const. 8433 M. D. Das, of DPS is charged for misconduct and commission of offence in that a case was Regd. No. 5/94 dated 30. 4. 94 on the basis of recovery of coal (shown under item 1) against the accused (outsiders) and M. D. Das for such theft and that Sri Das to avoid such arrest remained traceless and absented from his working post from evening of 3. 5. 94 to 5. 5. 94 without any intimation and authority to his controlling officer and has contravened Rule 147 (vi) of RPF Rules, 1987. (III) Const 8433 M. D. Das, of DPS is charged for his misconduct, gross insubordination and commission of an act in that Shri Das when was forwarded to the Court of Rly. Magistrate on 6. 5. 94 being legally arrested on 5. 6. 94 by OC/dps duly hand cuffed as an accused to the case cited above assaulted Shri A. Singh, OC/rpf/dps superior to him in rank by use of criminal force on the left ear by fist blow resulting injury and thereby has violated rule 146. Magistrate on 6. 5. 94 being legally arrested on 5. 6. 94 by OC/dps duly hand cuffed as an accused to the case cited above assaulted Shri A. Singh, OC/rpf/dps superior to him in rank by use of criminal force on the left ear by fist blow resulting injury and thereby has violated rule 146. 5 (b) and 147 (xii) and (xiii) of R. P. F. Rules, 1987. ? ( 3 ) THE writ petitioner preferred an appeal from the order of removal from service. The appellate authority also affirmed the punishment given by the disciplinary authority. Hence, this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE entire proceeding as well as the order of punishment have been assailed before me on three grounds; (I) The authority while issuing the charge-sheet had pre-judged the issue and as such, the proceeding was vitiated by the principles of natural justice. (II) The writ petitioner before submission of his defence asked for inspection of several documents some of which were refused on the ground that those documents were not relied upon by the prosecution. (III) There was no direct evidence for which the enquiry officer could have come to a conclusion that the charges were proved beyond doubt. ( 5 ) FROM the first charge quoted (supra) it would appear that the writ petitioner's contention is justified. The words 'he allowed them to commit theft' are sufficient to show that the authorities were in closed mind. Two decisions of this Court have been relied upon by the petitioner i. e. in the case of Bimala Kanta Mukherjee, 1980 Vol: 2, Calcutta High Court Notes page 36 and in the case of Subrata Bhattacharya, 1984 Vol: 2, Calcutta High Court Notes Page 185. Following the said two decisions of this Court, I hold that the first contention of the writ petitioner is correct and the charge-sheet issued upon the writ petitioner was vitiated by the principles of natural justice as the authority had issued the same in a closed mind and had pre-judged the issue even at the stage of framing of charges. ( 6 ) ON the second issue my attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition which reads as follows:?12. ( 6 ) ON the second issue my attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition which reads as follows:?12. With reference to the statement contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said application I deny and dispute the allegations contained therein and say that the petitioner vide his representation dated 20. 7. 1994 addressed to the respondent No. 6 requested for supply of 8 items of records and statements of 13 witnesses. On 27. 7. 1994 and 28. 7. 1994 the petitioner was supplied with the copies of records as mentioned in Sl. No. 1 to 5 and statements of 13 Nos. of Staff as mentioned in Sl. 9. All these documents were also included in the list of the documents relied upon of the charge sheet. Item of record under Sl. Nos. 6,7 and 8 could not be supplied as those records do not include the list of the records relied upon. Apart from the above some seizure lists (2 Nos.) were also furnished to him for which the petitioner has never prayed for. ? ( 7 ) IT was contended by the respondent authority that the serial Nos. 6,7 and 8 could not be supplied as those records were not included in the list of records relied upon by the prosecution. Such contention of the respondent is not tenable and is violative of the principles of natural justice. If the writ petitioner wanted to rely upon those documents which were in the custody of the respondents to defend himself the respondent authority were bound to offer inspection of those documents. Denial of such amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and as such, I held that such contention of the writ petitioner is justified. ( 8 ) ON the third issue, I have carefully examined and analysed the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer. It is well-settled principle of law that hear-say evidence is no evidence at all. The writ petitioner was implicated in the said case and was held to be guilty beyond doubt on the basis of hear-say evidence. Such finding of the enquiry officer was contrary to the principles of law and as such, I hold that the finding of the enquiry officer on the basis of such evidence holding the writ petitioner responsible for such incident was totally unjustified. Such finding of the enquiry officer was contrary to the principles of law and as such, I hold that the finding of the enquiry officer on the basis of such evidence holding the writ petitioner responsible for such incident was totally unjustified. ( 9 ) IN the result, I hold that the entire proceeding from the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet was vitiated by illegality, irregularity and I also hold that the petitioner was not afforded adequated opportunity to defend himself in the said proceeding. I also hold that the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse and could not have been made basis of the order of the disciplinary authority. The writ petition thus, succeeds. The order of the disciplinary authority, appearing at page 133 of the writ petition as affirmed by the appellate authority is quashed and set aside. The entire proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner is also quashed and set aside. The writ petitioner be reinstated forthwith with all pecuniary benefits available to him in law. This order will not preclude the respondent authority to proceed against the writ petitioner by framing a proper charge if they are so entitled to in law. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates, for the parties on usual undertaking. Petition succeeds