Short Note : 1. The respondent Govind Prasad was employed as a police constable and was at the relevant time under the Superintendent of Police, Indore. He was charge-sheeted for some acts of indiscipline and misbehaviour with the Superintendent of police. The departmental enquiry was held by a Circle Inspector and in the report submitted by him it was held that the charges were proved. The respondent was therefore, served a notice to show cause as to why he be not dismissed. After cause was shown by the respondent, he was dismissed from service vide Ex.P-5 against order passed by the Superintendent of police an appeal by the respondent was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of police. Representation by the respondent to the State Government was also turned down. 2. The respondent, therefore, brought the present suit challenging the legality of the order of dismissal passed against him. It was urged by him that the departmental enquiry held against him was illegal, that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause for the proposed punishment and that his dismissal from service was in violation of the relevant rules. 3. The claim made by the respondent was resisted by the State Government. The trial Court, however, held that there was no violation of the rules applicable to the enquiry held against the respondent and that it was only after a reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent that the impugned order was passed. An appeal by the respondent to the Additional District Judge was allowed, who held that there was a violation of the relevant rules, that the respondent was not given the reasonable opportunity provided by Article 11 (2) of the Constitution and that the impugned order of dismissal/removal from service was bad in law. It is against this appellate judgment and decree that the present appeal has been filed. 4. It is not disputed that a department enquiry was held against the respondent on certain charges of indiscipline while working as a police constable. The order passed against the respondent was challenged on the ground that there was violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal). Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules), in as much as the enquiry officer did not examine the Superintendent of Police Shri Sahu who was a material witness in the said enquiry. The order passed against the respondent was challenged on the ground that there was violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal). Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules), in as much as the enquiry officer did not examine the Superintendent of Police Shri Sahu who was a material witness in the said enquiry. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent never made a prayer for the examination of the Superintendent of police as his witness. In reply to the charges framed against the respondent, it was no doubt stated by the respondent vide his reply Ex.P-2 that if Shri Sahu S.P. is kept present, the Enquiry Officer will be in a position to know as to whether he was or was not guilty of the charges framed against him. The Department no doubt did not examine Shri Sahu but adduced other evidence to prove the charges. On the evidence given in the Departmental enquiry both by the respondent as well as by the Department, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. If the respondent thought that either for his defence or for the rebuttal of the charges found against him, the examination of the S.P. was necessary, then he should have made a prayer in that behalf to the Enquiry Officer. The respondent's case is not that he made a prayer for the examination of a particular witness or for the examination of Shri Sahu in the enquiry held against him. When that was so, there was no violation of Rule 55 of the Rules as held by the learned Additional District Judge. According to Rule 55, it is provided that the person charge-sheeted shall have right to call and examine such witnesses as he may desire. Discretion is, however, given to the Enquiry Officer to refuse such a prayer for adequate reasons. This is, however, not a case where prayer was made by the respondent for the examination of Shri Sahu as his witness. When that was so, it cannot be said that a reasonable prayer was made by the respondent and the same was unreasonably refused. Accordingly, in my opinion, the ground on which the impugned order of the respondent's removal/dismissal from service was passed by the competent authority could not be challenged on the ground which have been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. Accordingly, in my opinion, the ground on which the impugned order of the respondent's removal/dismissal from service was passed by the competent authority could not be challenged on the ground which have been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. Appeal allowed.