S. K. Horachaudhuri J — The petitioner, while working as Sub-Divisional Officer in the P. W. D., Government of Mizoram, was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings by the Order No. CON. 4/PW/7I/18 dt. 19.10.74, of the Lt. Governor, Mizoram, passed in exercise of power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 shortly CCSCCA Rules. On the same day, by another Order No. CON. 4/PW/74/19 dated 19. 10.74, the Disci­plinary Authority appointed Shri Robula, Executive Engineer, P. W. D., Aizwal as the Inquiry Officer to hold domestic enquiry in the charges framed against the petitioner and enclosed a copy of the charge sheet drawn against the petitioner with the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charges. The list of witnesses and the list of documents by which the articles of charges were sought to be established were also given. The copy of the said letter with copy of the charge sheet appears to have been forwarded to the petitioner under Memo No. CON. 4/PW/74/20 dated 19th October, 1974. From records it, however, docs not appear that memo of charge sheet with imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour was served on the petitioner separately by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner appears to have been confused and instead of submitting the reply to disciplinary authority, he submitted the same to the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was charged with the allegation of attempting to inflate the amount of bill of a contractor by interpolation of relevant records. The Inquiry Officer by letter No. Misc. 6?/84/CON/ Oil dated 12.9.75 addressed to the Secretary, P. W. D., Government of Mizoram, submitted synopsis of the statement of witnesses of the disciplinary authority and facts in brief found from the documents received and collected by him. On being asked to give his finding the Inquiry Officer, subsequently by Memo No. 53/78 dated 1.3.76 submitted his finding on the basis of the enquiry, stating that from the evidences on records, it was clear that the charged officer (Petitioner) tried to increase the amount of passed bill but the Executive Engineer detected its correction. On receipt of the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Government by Memo No. dated 21.5.76 asked the petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. On receipt of the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Government by Memo No. dated 21.5.76 asked the petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause on 25.5.76 and thereafter the Govt. of Mizoram by the impugned order dated 17.8.76 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner made an appeal to the appellate authority. In the appeal the petiti­oner amongst other stated that reasonable opportunity was denied to him and Inquiry Officer denied him the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that order was arbitrary and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.10.81. Being aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition. 2. Mr. S. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding including the so called inquiry proceeding is arbitrary and is vitiated by violation of the mandatory provision of CCSCCA Rules as well as principles of natural justice and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be set aside and the petitioner be re­instated in service with full back wages etc. The petitioner in the petition has specifically alleged that witnesses were not examined in his presence by the Inquiry Officer and consequently he did not get opportunity to cross-examine them. Moreover, documents collected behind his back were relied upon without presenting the same in the enquiry proceedings. That contention is denied by the respondent in the affidavit-in-opposition. The Standing Counsel of the Govt. of Mizoram, on the other hand, has submitted that the enquiry procee­dings were conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-ermine the witnesses. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order of dismissal was passed after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the same was not arbitrary. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and have perused the records. From records it does not appear that the Inquiry Officer examined the witnesses of Disciplinary Authority in the presence of (he peti­tioner. It also does not appear that documents relied on were placed in the enquiry proceedings. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and have perused the records. From records it does not appear that the Inquiry Officer examined the witnesses of Disciplinary Authority in the presence of (he peti­tioner. It also does not appear that documents relied on were placed in the enquiry proceedings. Non-maintenance of ordersheet either of disciplinary proceedings or of the domestic enquiry proceeding has made the matter confusing. The procedures laid down in rule 14 of the CCSCCA Rules 1965 are the only safeguard against arbitrary decision against a Govt. servant which may visit him with economic death sentence of dismissal and the said procedures are mandatory. Said rule provides procedure to be followed in stages, namely : i) Before embarking into domestic inquiry definite charges with statements of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour with which the Govt. servant is charged is to be framed The charge sheet should also contain list of witnesses and documents to be relied in support of the allegations contained in the charges. ii) The chargesheet with above mentioned particulars is to be served on the Govt. servant, asking him to submit reply/ defence statements against the charges. Opportunity to inspect the documents/ records and to have copies or extract thereof, which are relevant to meet the charges, to be given for submission of reply defence statement. iii) If the charges are not admitted, the disciplinary authority either itself will hold domestic enquiry into the charges, or by an Inquiring Authority to be appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. Inquiring Authority shall be supplied with the chargesheet, the reply/defence statement of the Government servant. iv) A presenting officer may be appointed by the disciplinary authority to present the case of the disciplinary authority in the enquiry proceeding. On the other hand, the Govt. servant shall be allowed to have assistance of another Govt. servant of his choice to assist him in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority may in its discretion allow assistance of a legal practitioner to the Govt. servant. v) Inquiring Authority shall intimate the Govt. servant the date with time and place of holding the enquiry and shall exa­mine the witnesses one by one and not in presence of another and shall faithfully record the statements of the witnesses in presence of the Govt. servant and shall allow the Govt. servant. v) Inquiring Authority shall intimate the Govt. servant the date with time and place of holding the enquiry and shall exa­mine the witnesses one by one and not in presence of another and shall faithfully record the statements of the witnesses in presence of the Govt. servant and shall allow the Govt. servant to cross-examine each of the witnesses. vi) After closure of the recording of statements of the witn­esses of the disciplinary authority, the Inquiring Authority shall give opportunity to the Govt. servant to examine witnesses in his defence. vii) After conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the Inquiring Authority shall give his findings applying his mind independ­ently as to whether the charges against the Govt. servant ate established or not by evidences and materials on records. 4. The aforesaid procedure are mandatory being in conformity with the principles of natural justice, and any violation thereof may vitiate the proceedings. This Court in the case of Anil Das vs. Superintendent of Post Offices of Kamrup (AIR 1969 Assam & N a gal and 99) held that Rule 14(2} is a mandatory provision. The procedure under Rule 14 does warrant maintenance of order sheet. Rule 14 indicates an elaborate enquiry in conformity with the rules of natural justice. 5. In the instant case not only order sheet is not maintained, it appears from records that the entire procedure of enquiry was conducted in perfunctory manner in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Justice should not only be done but must appear to have been done. 6. From what is stated and observed above, we hold that enquiry proceedings is vitiated by violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 14 of CCSCCA Rules and the principles of natural justice, and that being so, the impugned order of dismissal and impugned appell­ate order cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be set aside and we set aside the impugned orders accordingly. 7. In case the disciplinary authority, namely, the Govt. decides not to proceed further with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be re-instated in service, with full back wages and other service benefit to which the petitioner would have been entitled, had the petitioner not been suspended and ultimately dismissed from service. If, however, Govt. 7. In case the disciplinary authority, namely, the Govt. decides not to proceed further with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be re-instated in service, with full back wages and other service benefit to which the petitioner would have been entitled, had the petitioner not been suspended and ultimately dismissed from service. If, however, Govt. decides to proceed with the enquiry the petitioner shall deemed to have been under suspension during the entire period, namely, the period from the date of dismissal to the date of termination of the disci­plinary proceedings or re-instatement in service and be paid the subsistence allowance. It is needless to point out that proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the mandatory procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the CCSCCA Rules. 8. The petition is allowed. We make no order as to costs.