employee. The matter would have been different if the delinquent employee would have not shown his wish to cross-examine but herein the fact is otherwise as would be evident from the extract of the enquiry report as under Annexure-5 that the complainant and the witnesses Nos,.1, 2, 3 & 5 have deposed before the enquiry officer but they have refused to be cross-examined and even they have refused to answer the query made by the enquiry officer and in that view of the matter, according to our considered view such evidence cannot be said to be an evidence in the eye of law for proving the charge, as such, it is not a case of reappraisal of evidence rather according to our view it will be a case of no evidence so far as charge No.1 is concerned but certainly so far as charge No.2 is concerned, it cannot be doubted that the petitioner/appellant being an employee of disciplined force when he received information from his brother-in-law he should have apprised the competent authority about the entire incidence more particularly, the fact that he has also been involved in the criminal case. It might be that subsequently the petitioner/appellant has been discharged along with his family members from the criminal liabilities but the foremost question is that if a public servant has proceeded on duty and he is involved in a criminal case is it not his duty to apprise the disciplinary authority? In our view, the petitioner/appellant being a member of discipline force was required to apprise the authority concerned with respect to the reason to proceed on leave and if he is being involved in the criminal case it ought
