Cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses is mandatory in remand adjudication; failure to secure attendance vitiates the order.

Adjudication based on witness statements requires compliance with binding directions to afford cross-examination of those witnesses. Where the record shows that the authority did not secure the witnesses' attendance and proceeded only on the assumption that they were not traceable, the remand directions are not complied with. An order founded on statements that were never made available for cross-examination is contrary to law and cannot stand. The question of limitation was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication was vitiated for failure to produce the witnesses whose statements were relied upon for cross-examination.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority was bound by the directions earlier issued to afford cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the demand. The record showed that the authority did not secure their attendance and instead proceeded on the footing that the witnesses were not traceable. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had not exercised the powers available to ensure attendance of witnesses during adjudication and had thereby failed to comply with the directions governing the remand proceedings. Since the demand rested on statements that were not made available for cross-examination, the order was held to be contrary to law and the earlier directions.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside; the appeal was allowed. The question of limitation was left open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where adjudication relies on witness statements, failure to secure their cross-examination in compliance with binding directions vitiates the order.

---