JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by an Officer, in the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Uttarakhand, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Inquiry Officer dated 23.08.2019 and to allow his application dated 23.08.2019.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry. A charge sheet was, thereafter, issued to him and a Sitting Judge of this Court was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against him.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the order passed by the Inquiry Officer dated 23.08.2019 rejecting his request to defer cross examination of PW-2 till the other cited witness is also examined-in-chief. In his order dated 23.08.2019, the Inquiry Officer has opined that PW-2 had travelled twice from Roorkee to Nainital; examination-in-chief of PW-2 was recorded on that day; and since the procedure prescribed in a criminal trial is not applicable to a departmental enquiry, he found no reason to allow the application of the delinquent officer. The request of the delinquent officer was rejected. However, considering the apprehension of the delinquent officer and as a matter of precaution, the Inquiry Officer directed that the statement of PW-2 be kept in a sealed cover to enable the delinquent officer to cross-examine him.

4. After recording the submission urged on behalf of delinquent officer, that he intended challenging the said order of rejection, the Inquiry Officer deferred and adjourned the enquiry on the request of the delinquent officer. The matter was directed to be listed on 13.09.2019 for cross examination of PW-2 and the learned Inquiry Officer recorded that, in the meanwhile, the delinquent officer may avail the legal remedies available to him. We are now informed that the enquiry, scheduled to be held on 13.09.2019, has been deferred to 20.09.2019.

5. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the very object, of providing an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross examine witnesses, would be defeated, if the delinquent officer is forced to reveal his defense during cross examination of PW-2; this may result in the next cited witness covering up the deficiencies, brought out during the cross examination of PW-2, in his testimony; while the principles applicable to a criminal trial may not automatically apply to disciplinary proceedings, the obligation, to comply with the Rules of Natural Justice, is applicable even to departmental enquiries; the Supreme Court, in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88, has held that a departmental enquiry is quasi-criminal in character; the Supreme Court, in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465, has emphasized on the importance of an effective cross-examination in a departmental enquiry; the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Rasheed, 2018 SCC Online 2252, would apply squarely to the facts of the present case; the Inquiry Officer has erred in brushing aside this judgment of the Supreme Court, merely holding that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable in departmental enquiries; while the strict rules of the Evidence Act, applicable in a criminal trial, may not apply to departmental enquiries, nevertheless the right to effectively cross-examine witnesses is conferred upon the delinquent even in disciplinary proceedings; in the present case, the right of cross-examination would be effective, only if the delinquent officer is not compelled to disclose his defence before the other cited witness is examined in chief; the ratio, of the judgment in Rasheed, 2018 SCC Online 2252, squarely applies to the present case, despite the distinction between a criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings; in the light of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Dhananjay Verma vs. S