JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appellant had challenged an order of termination dated 18 November 2004 passed against him on the charge of embezzlement, in writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant was an Amin and the charge against him was that he had received an amount of Rs.7492/- from a farmer which had not been deposited with the bank. On this ground, the charge of embezzlement was held to have been established in the course of a disciplinary proceeding. The appellant did not take recourse to the remedy available under the statutory rules of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, the submission was that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of an opportunity to cross examine the farmer whose money was alleged to have been embezzled but though such a remedy was available under Rule 7 (vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the appellant was denied an opportunity of cross-examining the farmer. 3. The learned Single Judge has adverted to the specific averment contained in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that no request for cross examination was made in the enquiry and to the traverse in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder, which was vague and evasive and, in fact, there was no specific denial on the part of the appellant. Having so observed, the learned Single Judge has, however, left it open to the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy of an appeal with the clarification that, if an appeal is filed, it shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant had before the Enquiry Officer, sought an opportunity of cross-examination. We have been taken through that part of the statement of the appellant. All that the appellant had stated before the Enquiry Officer, was that, if the Enquiry Officer were not to be in favour of the defence, then the appellant may be furnished an opportunity to cross examine the farmer, namely, Mangi. If, indeed, the appellant was serious about making any such request, a specific application should have been made before the Enquiry Officer, which the record does not disclose was made. If, indeed, the appellant was serious about making any such request, a specific application should have been made before the Enquiry Officer, which the record does not disclose was made. This is coupled with the entirely vague statement in the rejoinder when the appellant was confronted with the defence that he had not made any specific request before the Enquiry Officer. 5. However, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has fairly left it open to the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy of an appeal, with the clarification that if an appeal is filed, it shall be disposed of on its own merits in accordance with law. In that event, the observations which have been made in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and in this judgment, will not come in the way of the Appellate Authority in making a full assessment of all the facts which may be disputed in the appeal. 6. Subject to the aforesaid clarifications, we see no reason to entertain the special appeal. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.