NAVIN SINHA, J.

1. The Petitioner was issued memo of charges on seven counts. In the departmental proceeding a finding of guilt was returned with regard to Charges No. 1 (d), 2,4 and 6. A second Show Cause Notice was issued replied to by the Petitioner when the punishment of dismissal has been imposed by Order dated, 26th September, 1997, presently assailed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Chitranjan Sinha with regard to charge 1 (d) submitted that the Inquiry Officer relied upon an enquiry report of the Anchal Adhikari, who in turn was stated to have recorded the statement of two employees making allegations against the Petitioner of having demanded illegal gratification.The Petitioner denied the charge in his reply. It was, therefore, necessary for the Inquiry Officer to have examined the Anchal Adhikari and the other two employees as witnesses to prove the allegations. Irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner may have made no request to summon them for cross-examination does not detract from the primary responsibility of the prosecution to prove its own case and for the Inquiry Officer to examine them and record their statements forthe purpose. In absence of the same