“6. So far as the domestic enquiry is concerned, its appears from Ext.1/a that the M.W.1 was directed to conduct the enquiry. During the cross-examination M.W.1 has admitted that no intimation was sent to the workman to the effect that the M.W. 1 was directed by the management to enquire into the matter. Although he has stated that during the enquiry from 17.10.86 to 20.10.86 the workman was all along present, but it appears that no allegation report or charge-sheet was handed over to the workman. M.W.1 has also stated that although he gave opportunity to the workman to cross-examine two witnesses, but the workman refused to cross-examine them, but the M.W.1 did not reflect that fact on the statement of witnesses or in the enquiry report. He denied the suggestion that the workman was not present during the cross-examination of the witnesses. Surprisingly enough during cross examination he has admitted the fact that when he was recording the statement of two witnesses on 18.10.86, the workman was not present. It also appears that the copy of the enquiry report was not handed over to the workman. Another peculiar aspect as revealed from the crossexamination of M.W.2 is that he had submitted a written report regarding the occurrence before the M.W.1, but the M.W.1 does not whisper anything regarding such report. It appears from his evidence that although the workman had confessed his guilt under Ext.2/a, but he did not sign in any documents. On reference to Ext.2/a, it appears that it was drafted as statement of the workman reflecting his confession and requesting the authority not to initiate any police action and to relingquish him from his service on settlement of his account, but the
