Cross-examination of essential witness remained unavailable, so dropping of charges after remand was sustained.

Cross-examination of a co-accused was treated as essential to establish liability, and the earlier remand required readjudication on that basis. When the witness was again not produced by the department, the adjudicating authority had no material foundation to record findings against the respondents. The revisional authority found no infirmity in the dropping of charges after remand and did not examine the remaining submissions. The charges were therefore upheld as dropped, and the challenge to the order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order dropping the charges after remand was sustainable when the witness considered essential for cross-examination was not produced.

Analysis: The earlier remand required readjudication because cross-examination of the co-accused was treated as essential to establish the respondents' liability. In the subsequent proceedings, the witness was again not produced by the department, and the adjudicating authority therefore had no basis to proceed to a finding against the respondents. The revisional authority found no infirmity in that course and declined to examine the remaining submissions.

Conclusion: The dropping of the charges was upheld and no error was found in the impugned order.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the order under challenge stood affirmed in effect.

---