Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo, dated 25.11.2002, said to have been issued to the petitioner, by the third respondent. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, in spite of the representation, dated 16.12.2004, submitted by the petitioner, the relevant documents had not been furnished, as requested by the petitioner, to enable him to defend himself during the enquiry. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year, 1999. The complaint against the petitioner had been made in the year, 2002. However, the impugned charge memo, dated 25.11.2002, had been signed by the officer concerned, only on 21.9.2004. Thereafter, an enquiry officer had been appointed, to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner, only on 19.7.2006. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo against the petitioner and in appointing an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. As such, serious prejudice had been caused to the petitioner in defending himself, especially, in view of the fact that the relevant documents, relied on by the respondents, had not been furnished to the petitioner, in spite of the several requests made by him. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had not appeared during the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer concerned, in spite of several reminders issued to the petitioner. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents had further submitted that the relevant documents relied on by the respondents would be furnished to the petitioner, as requested by him. Thereafter, an enquiry would be conducted, based on the charges levelled against him. The enquiry would be conducted, as per the procedures established by law, and by following the principles of natural justice. 7. Thereafter, an enquiry would be conducted, based on the charges levelled against him. The enquiry would be conducted, as per the procedures established by law, and by following the principles of natural justice. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to furnish the relevant documents to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before conducting an enquiry on charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer concerned shall conduct the enquiry following the principles of natural justice, by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth of the defences available to him during the enquiry. The enquiry officer concerned shall complete the enquiry and submit the enquiry report, to the third respondent, the disciplinary authority, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall co-oopeate, fully, in the enquiry proceedings to be conducted, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.