in respect of each of the prosecution witnesses. As for the documents that the petitioner claims he was denied copies of, the impugned order dated 7th January, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority reveals that during the course of the Departmental Inquiry, while recording the petitioner’s statement on 26th July, 2004, in reply to one of the questions put by the Inquiry Officer, he had admitted to having received a copy of the documents 1 to 4 along with the charge-sheet. It was also noted that the statement of the witnesses was recorded in the presence of the petitioner and a copy thereof, was furnished to him. Further, with the counter affidavit, the respondents have filed a letter dated 5th October, 2004 (Annexure R-3), which is in the hand of the petitioner, wherein he had stated that he does not want to state anything against the Inquiry Officer, nor does he want to take any action against him. The above document clearly demonstrates that the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer while conducting the inquiry was in order and therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural justice were not followed in the course of conducting the inquiry proceedings is found to be untenable and is turned down.
