The fundamental principle of natural justice and the entitlement to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon in an enquiry.

1. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, rejecting their request for cross-examination of certain Officers and persons in an enquiry, in pursuance of the show cause notices, issued under Section 11A of the Central Act, 1944.

2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Vijayakarthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. In the annexure to the show cause notices, the respondents rely upon the reports of the Energy Auditor as well as the statements of some officers and witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1106 of 2013 made a request for the cross-examination of those officers and witnesses. The petitioners in the other two writ petitions did not make any such request.

4. However, by independent communications containing the same reasons, the enquiry officer rejected the request for cross-examination. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The fact that the annexure to the show cause notices contained the list of statements recorded from certain persons and officers and also the Energy Auditor's Report, in support of the show cause notices, is not denied. Once certain reports or statements are relied upon in an enquiry, it is fundamental that the author of the report and the persons from whom, such statements are allegedly recorded should be made available for cross-examination. It is part of the principal of natural justice which cannot be denied.

6. However, in the counter affidavit, three objections are taken by the respondents to the request of the petitioners for cross-examination. They are (i) that the petitioners prolonged the issue even without submitting an explanation to the show cause notices for more than one and half years; (ii) that the petitioners have not adduced any reasons for cross-examination of those persons (iii) and that none of the witnesses have retracted from their original statements.

7. It is true that in the first writ petition, the petitioner took more than one and half years to give his explanation to the charge memo. I have no doubt that he has delayed the matter. But, the petitioner is in no way responsible for the respondents not proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. It is well within the powers of the respondents to have conducted the enquiry ex parte. As a person, against whom a show cause notice issued, the petitioner would certainly employ all weapons in his armoury, including dilatory tactics. The efficiency of an Enquiry Officer depends only upon making things move in an enquiry. Therefore, the fact that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in giving an explanation, is no ground to deny, the most essential right of a person, against whom an enquiry is conducted.

8. It appears that the petitioners in the other two writ petitions have also submitted similar objections belatedly. Though the respondents claim that they were only interim replies and not explanations to the show cause notices, I do not think that anything will turn on the question. Whether it was an interim reply or an explanation, I am only concerned with a short question, as to whether, the petitioners are entitled to cross-examine of the witnesses or not?. Even if the petitioners had never submitted any explanation to the show cause notices, the conduct of an enquiry becomes necessary and the cross-examination of the officers, who are authors of the statements, crystalizes into a right for the petitioners. Therefore, the first objection to the request for cross-examination is to be rejected.

9. The second objection to the request for cross-examination is that the petitioners have not stated any reason for cross-examination of those persons. No reason need be stated by any person for requiring cross-examination. In an enquiry, a person gets two kinds of rights. The first set of right revolves around the right to peruse the documents relied upon by the department and the