Order S. K. Mookherji & N Pandey, JJ. This writ application has been filed for quashing order dated 4.9.1993 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with relation to certain charges proved during the course of departmental proceeding. He has also prayed for quashing the order of the appellate authority dated 12.11.1993 (Annexure-4) whereby the order of dismissal against the petitioner has been affirmed. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for both the parties, therefore, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission. It appears that on the basis of a report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in a preliminary enquiry the appropriate authority initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Thereafter, altogether three charges were framed against him namely :- (a) That while on deputation in the district of Chatra he committed unnatural offence with a child aged about 13, 14 years. (b) That during the course of preliminary enquiry it was found that the petitioner after taking liquor used to move in the village in order to harass the family members of the villagers. (c) That during the period of suspension he was directed to report at the headquarter, but he ignored such direction deliberately in order to flout the order. The petitioner filed show cause and after examining certain witnesses the enquiry officer found him guilty with respect to two charges and submitted his report before the disciplinary authority for proper action. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the Enquiring officer as well as show cause of the petitioner held that the charges against the petitioner were grave and serious therefore, he recorded an order of dismissal against him. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, B.M.P. (Respondent No. 2) but the same was also dismissed having no merit in the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Respondents have completely erred in holding the petitioner guilty on the basis of preliminary enquiry report which was conducted in absence of the petitioner. He further contended that during the course of departmental enquiry also only hearsay witnesses were examined. Neither the victim boy nor a single eve witness was examined before the Enquiring Officer to prove the relevant charges. He further contended that during the course of departmental enquiry also only hearsay witnesses were examined. Neither the victim boy nor a single eve witness was examined before the Enquiring Officer to prove the relevant charges. It was contended that the entire enquiry report was based on the basis of a preliminary enquiry which was conduct by Sri Dina Nath Singh. Deputy Superintendent of Police B.M.P. before framing or charges. It was next contended the statement of the witnesses made before Sri Dina Nath Singh during the preliminary enquiry cannot be relied upon unless such witnesses are produced during the course of departmental enquiry for cross examination. In support of the aforesaid contention Mr. Singh placed reliance over two Bench decision of the Court in the case of Bashram Singh Vrs. The State (1980 BBCJ 27) and the case of Central bank of India Limited Vrs Prakash Chandra Jain (1969 SC 983). It is submitted from the aforementioned decision it is evident that the allegation against a Government employee is required to be proved on the basis or statements made in presence of such Government employee against whom the enquiry is held. The statements made behind the back of such employee are not to be treated as substantive evidence. The onus in such a proceeding is on the prosecutor to establish the charges against such Government employee. The matter would be different if the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross examining the witnesses, whose statement was furnished to the petitioner earlier, but he failed to avail of the opportunity. Mr. Singh further contended that the older of the appellate authority is completely non-speaking. He has just recorded a formal order of dismissal of appeal without examining the defence of the petitioner and the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of departmental enquiry. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 4 taking a stand that during the course of departmental enquiry the petitioner was supplied with copy of charges and other relevant enquiry report, statement of the witnesses including to that of the victim boy. The petitioner had also occasion to cross examine the witnesses along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had held the preliminary enquiry. Therefore, he can not raise a grievance at this stage that no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was given. The petitioner had also occasion to cross examine the witnesses along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had held the preliminary enquiry. Therefore, he can not raise a grievance at this stage that no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was given. It is further stated that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of appellate authority he, had an alternative statutory remedy of file a memorial before the Director General of police. Therefore, on this ground alone the writ application is not maintainable at this stage. It is well settled that an Enquiring Officer are not bound by the technical rules, contained in the Evidence Act, but the principle of natural justice demand that any allegation against a Government employee being examined during the course of departmental proceeding must be proved on the basis of relevant statement of the witnesses and other materials. But before taking into consideration with respect to such evidence and materials, a Government employee is legally entitled to cross examine witnesses as also examine relevant document which are likely to be used against him. Learned counsel for the state submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses on record, as well as the order of the disciplinary authority, it would appear that the charges against the petitioner have been fully proved. But he could not satisfy the Court why the appellate authority failed to consider the statement of the witnesses and other relevant materials produced on the record. We have already noticed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of certain witnesses who were examined during the course of preliminary enquiry, has been relied upon by the Enquiring officer, as well as the disciplinary authority, it is also being contended that from a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses it would be apparent that they had no occasion to witness the occurrence. Their statement was only based on hearsay and they are not the actual eye witnesses. In our view these material would have been very well appreciated by the appellate authority. These are all question of fact, therefore, it is not possible for us to examine all these question in a writ jurisdiction. Their statement was only based on hearsay and they are not the actual eye witnesses. In our view these material would have been very well appreciated by the appellate authority. These are all question of fact, therefore, it is not possible for us to examine all these question in a writ jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, for the ends of justice we are inclined to direct the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after examining all relevant materials available on the record and to dispose of his appeal by a reasoned order. In the result the order of the appellate authority contained in Annexure 4 is set aside and the case remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh order in the matter indicated above. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of. Application disposed.