The petitioner joined service as Constable in April, 1983 in the scale of pay of Rs.400/- Rs.690/- PM. He received necessary training at Chumukhedima Police Training Centre. After putting in 8 (eight) years of service, by memorandum dated 28th November, 1991 issued by the Commandant, 3rd NAP the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 20th November, 1991, That order of dismissal has been impugned in the present petition on the grounds, inter alia that before the order of dismissal was issued, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner, that no articles of charges were framed against the petitioner and that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted against the petitioner. There was no order of suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings. The petitioner's contention is that there is a very serious violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard before the order of dismissal was issued. 2. An allegation was brought against the petitioner that on 9.11.91 he was caught redhanded while he was stealing a hen/chicken from the house of one Mrs. Nimo Khemungan. The aforesaid order of dismissal reads : "Memorandum Where as a charge report brought to No.32683 Const. Akangkokba Ao that while he was stolen hen from the home of Nimo Khmn on 9.11.91 at 20.30 hrs and caught red handed by the house owner. He was put Unit Quarter Guard. He was produced to Commandant ORs oq 20.11.91. According to his statement and charge report he is a habitual are in such act. He also admitted several of such act against the discipline force nores. He was caught red handed by Nemo Khmn while he was an action by such act. He has finished all total 31 chicken and one dog belong to unit families. By deque of his misconduct and action he is dismissed from service with effect from 20.11.91 (AN) without any mercy." 3. Admittedly the petitioner's case would come without the purview of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules is of two parts. One describes minor penalties and the second part describes major penalties, in terms of this Rule. Rule 7 (ix) states : "dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government." Rule 9 deals with procedure for imposing penalties. Government has filed counter affidavit. Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules is of two parts. One describes minor penalties and the second part describes major penalties, in terms of this Rule. Rule 7 (ix) states : "dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government." Rule 9 deals with procedure for imposing penalties. Government has filed counter affidavit. It is not disputed that enquiry was not conducted before the order of dismissal was issued except that the petitioner was produced before the Commandant who examined him before the impugned order was issued. In this view of the matter, it appears it will not be necessary for me to extract the entire rule. However, for the purpose of the present case Rule 9(1) and (2) may be extracted: "9. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 shall be passed except after an enquiry, held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to toe held. Such charges, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by die Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Standard Form of Memorandum of charge sheet and memorandum are specified in Schedule IV and V." 4. On careful reading of the above quoted provisions of Rule 9, it is crystal clear that definite charges on the basis of allegations must be framed. Such charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based shall also be communicated in writing to the Government servant and he shall be required to submit within a specified period, a written statement of his defence. The petitioner had no such opportunity to file written reply inasmuch as no article of charges were furnished upon him. The Rule also contemplates that if the charges are denied, an Enquiry Officer should be appointed to enquire into the allegations and a report should be prepared by such Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had no such opportunity to file written reply inasmuch as no article of charges were furnished upon him. The Rule also contemplates that if the charges are denied, an Enquiry Officer should be appointed to enquire into the allegations and a report should be prepared by such Enquiry Officer. The petitioner contends in para 8 of this writ petition mat allegation is totally false and that such allegation has been made out of some ulterior motive. The allegation is that altogether the petitioner had stolen thirty one chickens and one dog from d the unit family line. 5. Although factual statement regarding appointment of the petitioner as Constable is not denied, the Govt. affidavit states in para 5 that the performance of the petitioner as a Constable was not at all satisfactory from the beginning inasmuch as he committed misconduct on several occasions. It is further stated in para 5 of the Govt. counter: "(1) He was awarded 5 days RI by the then Adjutant on 24.7.87. (2) He was awarded 5 days RI in Quarter Guard with 2 hrs packed Drill daily on 14.8.88." Mr. EY Renthungo, learned Junior Govt. Advocate states that such punishments have been clearly reflected in his service book. Para 7 of the Govt. counter further states that the petitioner himself had confessed that he had committed theft as alleged against him before the competent authority. It is also contended in para 8 of the Govt. counter that although the petitioner contends that a representation was made on 9.10.93 against the order of dismissal, no such representation was received by the competent authority at any time. It is also submitted by learned Junior Govt. Advocate that the alleged representation was also made only in October, 1993, and that too without any explanation as to why the said representation was made so belatedly. 6. Another submission made by the learned Junior Govt .Advocate is that there is a provision for appeal before the Govt. against the order of dismissal. The petitioner has not availed of that forum. Hence it is submitted that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. It is also further submitted that this petition cannot be sustained on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court at a very late stage and without any explanation as to the cause of delay. 7. Hence it is submitted that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. It is also further submitted that this petition cannot be sustained on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court at a very late stage and without any explanation as to the cause of delay. 7. As mentioned above, no departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner in terms of allegation of theft of chickens and dog. No charge was framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to show cause a why action should not be taken against him. There was no opportunity given to the petitioner to defend himself. It appears to me that the competent authority could not have simply issued order of dismissal without complying with the procedure laid down in this regard. The entire procedure has been done away with in the present case. In other words no enquiry whatsoever has been made in the present case. This is simply impermissible. In such a situation, it appears this Court would be justified to examine the grievance of the petitioner that no procedure has been followed before the order of dismissal was issued. 8. As regard the submission made on behalf of the Government that delay in the present case should defeat equity, I may state that although there has been delay, since the case involves avoidance of the procedure laid down by the Government and since the punishment is no less than dismissal of the petitioner from service, it appears it would be for the ends of justice to condone delay in approaching this Court. 9. There is no provision in the relevant rules under which formal enquiry can be avoided. There is no explanation anywhere by the competent authority as to why it was felt necessary not to enquire into the allegations. In my view the order of dismissal of quite arbitrary inasmuch as it has been issued in contravention to the clear provisions laid down in the aforesaid rules. 10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order of dismissal issued by the Commandant on 28th November, 1991 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. However, it is open to the competent authority to make necessary enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in this regard. 10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order of dismissal issued by the Commandant on 28th November, 1991 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. However, it is open to the competent authority to make necessary enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in this regard. Such enquiry, if instituted shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The service benefits of the. petitioner including back wages for the period from the date of dismissal till today shall depend on the outcome of the enquiry to be made against the petitioner. This petition is disposed of.