(1) THIS appeal is posted before us pursuant to the opinion rendered by the Constitution bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar. In this case, the respondent was an Engineer working in the ECIL. He was charged with passing of a spurious EC. T.V. as one made by the Electronics Corporation (employer) under the brand name Ajanta. On the basis of the complaint made by the purchaser, an inquiry was instituted against the respondent. At the conclusion of the inquiry, he was dismissed from service by the Corporation by its order dated 27/4/1987. The respondent challenged the same by way of a writ petition in the High court. The ground taken by him in the writ petition was that the complainant, Shri Raj Kumar was not tendered for cross-examination though his testimony was relied upon by the Corporation and the Enquiry Officer against him. The learned Single Judge negatived the same by holding that while it is true that the said witness was not tendered for cross- examination by the respondent, it cannot be said to have prejudiced him inasmuch as he has obtained an affidavit from the said person retracting his earlier statement. The learned Single Judge remarked