JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been directed against the order of dismissal dated 10-10-81 (Annexure-46) which was maintained, on appeal, by order dated 28th December, 1981 (Annx. 50). 2. Notices were issued. Reply to the writ petition has been filed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 4. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in, Bihar Military Police on 15-9-1968. Bihar Military Police was amalgamated in the Central Reserve Police Force somewhere in the year 1969 and the petitioner was assigned 52 Bn. Thereafter, he was transferred to 48 Bn and lateron to 67 Bn. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet and thereafter, an enquiry was held and after enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service by order dated 10-10-81 (Annx. 46). The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by order dated 23-12-1981 and hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The petitioner has raised several questions in this writ petition, one of them being that the Enquiry Officer had cross-examined the witnesses, who had appeared before him during the course of enquiry and he did not allow further cross-examination to the petitioner after the cross-examination done by the Enquiry. Officer, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer was biased as he had cross-examined the witnesses at length and did not allow further cross-examination to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Abdul Vajid v. State of Karnataka and others (1981 (1) SLJ 388) wherein the Karnataka High Court has held that if Enquiry Officer cross-examines the witnesses during the course of enquiry conducted by him the enquiry proceedings are vitiated. In the present case, there is an additional fact which is admitted by the non-petitioners in their reply that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine further after the enquiry officer had put questions to the witnesses. The defence of the non-petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer is entitled to put questions to clarify and thereafter, the delinquent (petitioner) is not entitled to further cross-examination. 6. We have gone through the statements of witnesses which were examined before the Enquiry Officer and which have been produced alongwith the writ petition. The defence of the non-petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer is entitled to put questions to clarify and thereafter, the delinquent (petitioner) is not entitled to further cross-examination. 6. We have gone through the statements of witnesses which were examined before the Enquiry Officer and which have been produced alongwith the writ petition. We find that after the examination-in-chief of the witnesses, the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine and after cross-examination by the petitioner was over, the Enquiry Officer himself put several questions to most of the witnesses who were examined before enquiry (sic) witnesses appeared for the department as well as examined in defence. 7. It this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer was biased and had played the role of Prosecutor and therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. Moreover, in the present case, since the petitioner was not allowed to further cross-examine the witnesses after questions were put by the Enquiry Officer it also amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Since we are in agreement with this argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we refrain ourselves from mentioning or dealing with other points raised in the petition. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 10-10-81 (Anx. 46) dismissing the petitioner from service, as well as the order dated 28-12-81 (Anx. 50) are hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Allowed. *******