JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Chakravarty, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1256/2013. 3. The present appellant/writ petitioner, a constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF), was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry on alleged charge of misbehavior with superior officers in a state of intoxication. The appellant/writ petitioner claimed that he was forced to leave the enquiry proceeding midway under threat and due to lack of minimum facilities. According to him, without declaring him a deserter, the proceeding continued, and he was not even served with the enquiry report, as well as the order of dismissal. It was further projected that the entire enquiry proceeding was conducted in violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 inasmuch as the Presiding Officer acted in a partisan and biased manner and asked leading questions to the witnesses of the employer, to elicit specific answers. Another ground was that in a criminal proceeding, based on the same incident, the appellant/petitioner was acquitted. However, the learned Single Judge negated such grounds and held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 were duly followed and though the appellant/petitioner refused to answer as to whether he pleads guilty or not, the authorities continued with the enquiry proceeding presuming such refusal to “pleading not guilty”. 4. After the scrutiny of the records, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Enquiry Officer has elaborately considered the statements made by the witnesses and that the statement of the eye witnesses to the alleged incident was recorded in the presence of the appellant/petitioner. The learned Single Judge further concluded that notices and enquiry report were served upon the petitioner, more particularly, in the absence of a denial of the stand of the employer that notices were duly served to the appellant/petitioner, except disputing the signature in the receipt. 5. After perusal of the record of the Departmental Proceeding, the learned Single Judge concluded that the procedure prescribed under Rule 27(c)(2) was not violated. 6. 5. After perusal of the record of the Departmental Proceeding, the learned Single Judge concluded that the procedure prescribed under Rule 27(c)(2) was not violated. 6. The contention of the appellant/petitioner that to come to a definite conclusion that the appellant/petitioner was under intoxication, medical evidence/document were required to be produced by the employer, was also negated by the learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the uncontroverted testimony of the two eye witnesses. 7. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated well before the conclusion of the criminal proceeding and therefore, the subsequent determination made in the criminal proceeding, acquitting the appellant/petitioner, will not give any benefit to the appellant/petitioner in the given facts of the present case. 8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, submits that though different grounds were taken, however, he would specifically urge on the ground that the enquiry authority has acted in a biased and partisan manner by putting leading questions to the appellant/petitioner, resulting in violations of principles of natural justice. 9. In support of his contention, Mr. Dutta refers to certain questions asked to the two eye-witnesses who witnessed the incident and according to him, such questions are leading questions resulting in violations of principles of natural justice vitiating the proceeding. In support Mr. Dutta places reliance on the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma , (2018) 7 SCC 670 . 10. We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. We are in total agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as, it is not in dispute that the respondent authorities, in the writ proceeding could clearly establish that the appellant/petitioner was duly put to notice of the enquiry proceeding and to certain extent, the appellant/petitioner participated in the proceeding, though subsequently he left the proceeding. Though he pleaded, the appellant/petitioner could not sustain the allegation that a copy of the enquiry report was not served upon him. 12. Though he pleaded, the appellant/petitioner could not sustain the allegation that a copy of the enquiry report was not served upon him. 12. In the case in hand, after close scrutiny of the questions put by the Enquiry Officer and as referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, we are of the opinion that such questions cannot be said to be questions guided towards a specific answer. We have no doubt in our mind that in a situation, when the Enquiry Officer plays the role of a Prosecutor and cross- examines the defence witnesses or puts leading questions to the prosecution witnesses, clearly exposing a biased state of mind, then the enquiry would be opposed to principles of natural justice. However, it is equally well settled that the Enquiry Officer is entitled to put questions to a witness for clarification, whenever it becomes necessary, and so long as the delinquent employee is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses after the enquiring authority questions the witnesses, the enquiry proceeding cannot be impeached as unfair. 13. In the case in hand, in our opinion, such questions were put with a view to obtain clarification inasmuch as the appellant/petitioner was not denied the opportunity to cross examine such witnesses on the questions put. Therefore, we are in total agreement with the determination of the learned Single Judge that such conduct of the Enquiry Officer has not vitiated the proceeding, nor can the same be termed as violative of principles of natural justice. 14. That being the position, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1256/2013 does not warrant any interference in this intra court appeal. Accordingly the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.