Honble MUKHERJI, C.J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/1995, dismissing the writ application. The grievance of the writ-petitioner appellant, inter alia, was that the order by which a penal recovery is sought to be made against him is violative of rule 180 of the Army Rules. (2). The respondents took a stand that rule 180 of the Army Rules would not be applicable in view of the fact that the character or reputation of the petitioner as Military servant would not be involved and that a court of inquiry under Central Civil Services (Classifications, Control & Appeals) Rules would be conducted against him and a full opportunity would be afforded to him to make out his defence there and, in the event of his being exonerated in that inquiry, the penal recovery made from him would be refunded to him. (3). We are fully convinced that this is a case where a finding was made on the basis of recommendations of the Chief Engineer, Project Dantak in the court of inquiry that the present appellant-petitioner was also guilty alongwith two others on a charge of misappropriation of Government stores to the extent of 4.382 metric tons of Bitumen, valued at Rs. 16,507=00 and a sum of Rs. 6,602=80 was directed to be recovered from him under Sec. 91(g). With a further recommendation that a suitable disciplinary action should also be taken against him alongwith two others for misappropriation of Government stores. It was incumbent duty on the part of the respondents to allow the writ-petitioner appellant to attend the proceedings and to give him a proper opportunity of making a statement and of giving any evidence that he might use to make or give in support of his contentions or, to cross examine any evidence whose testimony in his opinion could affect his career or Military reputation and also to produce any evidence in defence of his character or Military reputation. (4). As has been held in R.P. Shukla & ors. (4). As has been held in R.P. Shukla & ors. vs. Central Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Lucknow (1) rule 180 of the Army Rules requires that the presence of the accused is necessary during the court of inquiry and if it is not done, then the show cause notice on which summary court-martial is held would be vitiated and all the subsequent proceedings based on that show cause notice would be rendered ab initio void. It is well established that when certain procedure is mandatory in nature it should be done in that manner and in no other manner. Where the delinquent was not present during the court of inquiry or could not participate at the stage of court of inquiry, it would be violative of mandatory rule and, therefore, the entire proceedings would be liable to be quashed. In the court of inquiry as per rule 180 of the Army Rules the principles of natural justice have to be adhered to and even during the course of investigation, a court of inquiry cannot flout the rules of natural justice. If it does so, it cannot be said that the delinquent had opportunity of hearing during the course of summary court martial. The court of inquiry making an investi- gation into an offence should, therefore, observe the mandatory character of rule 180 of the Army Rules; it cannot be ignored. (5). In the present state of affairs we would, therefore, direct that the order, as contained in Annx. P l to; the writ petition cannot be allowed to stand qua the petitioner and therefore, is quashed, with liberty to the respondent-authorities to proceed in accordance with law. This appeal, accordingly, stands allowed to the extend indicated above. We, however, do not stifle or in any manner impede any court of inquiry which might be done in accordance with law.