Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the charge sheet dated 04.04.2001 relating to P.R.No.113 of 1999 and further to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and produce defence witnesses. 2. The petitioner being a guilty of serious misconduct, was issued a memo of charge levelling 11 charges. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on one date fixed by the enquiry officer, the petitioner could not appear as he had to attend the Court. The petitioner sent intimation in this regard to the enquiry officer, but, inspite of intimation, the enquiry officer closed the proceedings, which has prejudiced the right of the petitioner to effectively defend the case. 4. On notice, reply has been filed by the respondents. In para 11 of the reply, it has been stated as under: "11 With regard to the averments made in para-A of the grounds, it is submitted that the applicant was given sufficient time to cross examine the Pws. Even though, he has cross examined several witnesses at the first instance, he was again one more chance to cross examine the witnesses obeying to the orders of the Honble Tribunal. He was given advance intimation about the date, time and venue of the oral enquiry. Having acknowledged the summons, the applicant has not chosen to cross examine the witness. It is purely at his fault and the first respondent will no way responsible for the failure of the part of the applicant to cross examine the P.Ws." 5. The plea of quashing the charge sheet cannot be accepted, as it is for the employer to hold an enquiry on the allegations levelled against an employee. There are no allegation of malafide against any individual, therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the charge sheet issued to the petitioner. The charge sheet cannot be questioned on the plea raised in the petition. 6. As regards the plea of the petitioner for permission to cross examine the witnesses is concerned, the said prayer is also misconcieved, as the specific stand has been taken by the respondents that the petitioner was permitted to cross examine all the prosecution witnesses. The second grievance of the petitioner also stands redressed by the respondents. 7. No merit, dismissed. No costs.