JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, rejecting their request for cross-examination of certain Officers and persons in an enquiry, in pursuance of the show cause notices, issued under Section 11A of the Central Act, 1944. 2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Vijayakarthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. In the annexure to the show cause notices, the respondents rely upon the reports of the Energy Auditor as well as the statements of some officers and witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1106 of 2013 made a request for the cross-examination of those officers and witnesses. The petitioners in the other two writ petitions did not make any such request. 4. However, by independent communications containing the same reasons, the enquiry officer rejected the request for cross-examination. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The fact that the annexure to the show cause notices contained the list of statements recorded from certain persons and officers and also the Energy Auditor's Report, in support of the show cause notices, is not denied. Once certain reports or statements are relied upon in an enquiry, it is fundamental that the author of the report and the persons from whom, such statements are allegedly recorded should be made available for cross-examination. It is part of the principal of natural justice which cannot be denied. 6. However, in the counter affidavit, three objections are taken by the respondents to the request of the petitioners for cross-examination. They are (i) that the petitioners prolonged the issue even without submitting an explanation to the show cause notices for more than one and half years; (ii) that the petitioners have not adduced any reasons for cross-examination of those persons (iii) and that none of the witnesses have retracted from their original statements. 7. It is true that in the first writ petition, the petitioner took more than one and half years to give his explanation to the charge memo. I have no doubt that he has delayed the matter. But, the petitioner is in no way responsible for the respondents not proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. It is well within the powers of the respondents to have conducted the enquiry ex parte. I have no doubt that he has delayed the matter. But, the petitioner is in no way responsible for the respondents not proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. It is well within the powers of the respondents to have conducted the enquiry ex parte. As a person, against whom a show cause notice issued, the petitioner would certainly employ all weapons in his armoury, including dilatory tactics. The efficiency of an Enquiry Officer depends only upon making things move in an enquiry. Therefore, the fact that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in giving an explanation, is no ground to deny, the most essential right of a person, against whom an enquiry is conducted. 8. It appears that the petitioners in the other two writ petitions have also submitted similar objections belatedly. Though the respondents claim that they were only interim replies and not explanations to the show cause notices, I do not think that anything will turn on the question. Whether it was an interim reply or an explanation, I am only concerned with a short question, as to whether, the petitioners are entitled to cross-examine of the witnesses or not?. Even if the petitioners had never submitted any explanation to the show cause notices, the conduct of an enquiry becomes necessary and the cross-examination of the officers, who are authors of the statements, crystalizes into a right for the petitioners. Therefore, the first objection to the request for cross-examination is to be rejected. 9. The second objection to the request for cross-examination is that the petitioners have not stated any reason for cross-examination of those persons. No reason need be stated by any person for requiring cross-examination. In an enquiry, a person gets two kinds of rights. The first set of right revolves around the right to peruse the documents relied upon by the department and the right to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements, the enquiry or prosecution is based. The second set of right revolves around the right to produce the witnesses and documents in defence. If a person facing an enquiry seeks to summon some persons to be examined in his defence or seeks to summon some documents to be produced in support of his defence, it is open to the enquiry officer to ask the delinquent to justify such a request by adducing reason. If a person facing an enquiry seeks to summon some persons to be examined in his defence or seeks to summon some documents to be produced in support of his defence, it is open to the enquiry officer to ask the delinquent to justify such a request by adducing reason. But, insofar as cross-examination is concerned, no justification need be provided in the form of reasons by a delinquent. The very fact that some statements of some officers are relied upon is good enough reason for permitting cross-examination. The very fact that the right of cross-examination is part of the most essential rights is sufficient to grant the request. But, the enquiry officer cannot test the request for cross-examination on the strength of the reasons. Therefore, the second ground on which the request of the petitioners is rejected, cannot also be sustained. 10. The third ground on which the request of the petitioners is rejected is that none of the witnesses had retracted from their original statements. I am surprised at such a stand taken by the respondents. Retraction from an early statement would normally occur only during the course of the enquiry. In the course of the enquiry, witnesses have not been examined sofar. In other words, the respondents have presumed that the right to cross-examine would arise only in cases, where witnesses retract from their early statements. That is a wrong presumption or understanding of the law. The purpose of cross-examination is only to disprove the statements given by the witnesses. If the witnesses had already retracted from their original statements, the petitioners would have been well advised not to ask for cross-examination at all. This aspect has not been appreciated by the respondents. Therefore, the third objection cannot also be sustained. 11. Mr. B. Vijaya Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents raised one more objection. He stated that the petitioners in the second and the third writ petitions never even asked for an opportunity for cross-examination. On record, it is only the petitioner in the first writ petition, who sought an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioners in the other two writ petitions cannot insist, without even making a demand. But, unfortunately, I am not dealing with a Writ of Mandamus. On record, it is only the petitioner in the first writ petition, who sought an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioners in the other two writ petitions cannot insist, without even making a demand. But, unfortunately, I am not dealing with a Writ of Mandamus. Without a request being made by the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, their right to cross-examination has been aborted by a written order, which is impugned in these writ petitions. In other words, even without a request, there has been a foreclosure of the objection. That foreclosure of the objection is always open to challenge. In such circumstances, the last objection also cannot be sustained. 12. The learned Standing Counsel also contended that under the guise of cross-examination, the petitioners cannot protract the proceedings and cannot summon all sundry. I do not think that this could happen. It is only those persons whose statements are taken on record in the enquiry and relied upon by the department, who can be summoned, for cross-examination. There is no necessity to cross-examine persons, who recorded such statements. Persons who gave statements and who are witnesses, alone are liable to be cross-examined by the petitioners. Similarly, the report of the Energy Auditor is also of a vital significance. Hence, he should be made available for cross-examination. 13. It is needless to point out that once the petitioners are put on notice sufficiently in advance of the availability of the witnesses for cross-examination, the petitioners should not let loose that opportunity and ask for postponements of the hearing. If they do so, they may be doing so at their own peril. 14. In view of the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of, with the following directions:- (i) The enquiry officer shall indicate clearly in his communication sent to the petitioners about the next date of hearing, the time of hearing and the place of hearing as well as the list of statements and documents that he proposes to rely upon in the enquiry. (ii) The author of those documents or the witnesses, whose statements are indicated in the said communication shall be made available for cross-examination by the petitioners. (iii) The communications shall be sent in advance atleast with a seven days' time to inform the petitioners to appear and cross-examine the witnesses. 15. (ii) The author of those documents or the witnesses, whose statements are indicated in the said communication shall be made available for cross-examination by the petitioners. (iii) The communications shall be sent in advance atleast with a seven days' time to inform the petitioners to appear and cross-examine the witnesses. 15. It is made clear that only those persons whose statements or whose documents or whose reports are relied upon will be made available for cross-examination. Neither the petitioners will ask for cross-examination of others nor the respondents will rely upon anything other than those whose statements and reports are relied upon. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.