JUDGMENT B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. T. Diengdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. E.C. Suja, learned counsel and also heard Mr. B.B. Narzary, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned counsel for respondent No. 8. 2. The petitioner was appointed as the Syiem of Nongstoin by the respondent No. 1-Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong on 18.3.1998, The respondent No. 2 suspended the petitioner from the post of Syiem of Nongstoin and directed that the charges framed against him be enquired by the Additional Judge, Additional District Council Court, Shillong. The inquiry was duly conducted and the learned Addl. Judge, submitted his report dated 30.3.2001 in Enquiry Case No. 2 of 2000. In the said inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer after examining all the charges framed against the petitioner as well as the evidence adduced by the parties has found as follows : "In view of my findings on each of the charges as discussed which are in the negative I am of the opinion that the Syiem under suspension (O.P.) appears not to have violated, the terms and conditions of his appointment (Sanad) as well as the provisions of Section 6 of the U.K.J. Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Secession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 as amended." After the said Inquiry Report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer/Addl. Judge, Addl. District Council Court, Shillong, the Under Secretary, Elaka Administration by his letter dated 9.5.2001 addressed to the petitioner has sent a copy of the inquiry report dated 30.3.2001 to the petitioner and also directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2 on 17.5.2001 at 12 noon for hearing on the inquiry report. 3. The said Inquiry Report was again placed before the two Executive Members of the respondent No. 2 and the two Executive Members vide their order dated 22.5.2001 has recommended that further inquiry against the petitioner be made and if necessary by two persons jointly. By this report of the two Executive Members, the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 30.3.2001 was not accepted by the respondent No. 2. The above decision of the two Executive Members was conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 1.6.2001 from the Secretary, Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. 4. By this report of the two Executive Members, the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 30.3.2001 was not accepted by the respondent No. 2. The above decision of the two Executive Members was conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 1.6.2001 from the Secretary, Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. 4. The report of the said two Executive Members was placed before the respondent No. 2 the Executive Committee of the District Council and the Executive Committee vide its order dated 24.5.2001 has appointed Shri H.M. Dkhar, Judge, District Council Court and Mr. S. Kharsyiemiren, Magistrate, First Class, Subordinate District Council Court. Shillong as Inquiry Officers to conduct the inquiry jointly. Being aggrieved by the said fresh inquiry order by respondent No. 2, the petitioner has approached this Court by this petition. 5. The case of the petitioner is that after the first enquiry was made against him by the Addl. Judge, Addl. District Council Court, Shillong wherein the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges framed against him, there is no reason for ordering a fresh inquiry. It is also the case of the petitioner that if the second enquiry is made, the petitioner shall be highly prejudiced since the detail enquiry was already made and all the evidence and materials were placed before the Inquiry Officer, therefore, there is no fresh ground made out by respondent No. 2 to warrant a fresh inquiry against the petitioner. 6. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed affidavit-in-opposition and stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the Inquiry Officer has certain glaring mistakes and he totally ignored the constitution of Hima Nongstoin which was framed as far back in the year 1958 and since then has been in existence uninterruptedly in the Elaka. The Inquiry Officer has also committed certain procedural defects in holding enquiry and as such, the Executive Committee, without expressing their opinions in the matter at this stage, decided to hold a fresh enquiry by appointing two judicial Officers headed by Judge, District Council Court. There is nothing wrong or illegality in holding such fresh enquiry against the petitioner and the Executive Committee as the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. 7. There is nothing wrong or illegality in holding such fresh enquiry against the petitioner and the Executive Committee as the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. 7. The respondents also contended that the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and it has got every right and jurisdiction to order for fresh enquiry, 8. Mr. T.T. Deingdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the Inquiry Report dated 30.3.2001 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had no jurisdiction to recommend for holding of a fresh inquiry into the same charges framed against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Inquiry Officer has examined all the materials available on records and came to the conclusion the charges against the petitioner were not proved. The order for holding a fresh inquiry shall prejudice the petitioner. 9. Mr. Diengdoh, also contended that there is no provision in the U.K. Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Secession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 as amended (for short "Act") for holding a fresh enquiry against the petitioner since the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer as per direction of respondent No. 2. 10. Mr. Diengdoh further contended that the direction to hold a fresh enquiry by two members consisting of the Judge, District Council Court. Shillong and the Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong is only to cause harassment to the petitioner. The action is arbitrary and vindictive against the petitioner as the two Executive Members cannot sit as appellate authority against the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer who was duly authorised to hold an enquiry by the Executive Committee respondent No. 2. It is also contended by the counsel that the constitution of Hima Nongstoin was not approved by the Executive Committee of District Council and the constitution is only a draft constitution which is not tenable in the eye of law. The findings of the two Executive Members that the constitution has to be followed is totally wrong and perverse. 11. Mr. The findings of the two Executive Members that the constitution has to be followed is totally wrong and perverse. 11. Mr. B. B. Narzary, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the respondent No. 2 being the disciplinary authority has every right to direct for holding of a fresh enquiry against the petitioner if it is found that the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is not based on the facts and circumstances and the custom prevailing in the Elaka. Mr. Narzary also contended that the constitution of Hima Nongstoin has been in existence since the decades and has been followed all along but the Inquiry Officer has totally mis-interpreted the constitution and came to different findings. It is also contended that by overlooking provisions of the constitution of the Elaka the custom and practice in the Elaka was also overlooked by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer should have followed the custom as laid down in the Constitution but, that was not done by the Inquiry Officer therefore, the Inquiry Report was scrutinised by the two Executive Members duly authorised by the respondent No. 2-Executive Committee and after proper scrutiny the two executive Members found that the Enquiry Report could not be accepted and therefore, the Inquiry Report was rejected and a fresh enquiry was recommended by the two Executive Members. This recommendation of the two Executive Members was also accepted by the Executive Committee. There is no reasons whatsoever to debar the respondent No. 2-Executive Committee from holding afresh enquiry against the petitioner. 12. Upon hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records the only question is to examine in this case as to whether Executive Committee respondent No. 2 has the power/authority to order for a fresh enquiry and whether such order is justifiable and proper in the eye of law and in the interest of justice. 13. Section 6 of the U.K. Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 provided for removal and suspension of Chiefs. 13. Section 6 of the U.K. Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 provided for removal and suspension of Chiefs. Second Proviso and third Proviso of Section 6 of the Act reacts as follows : "Provided further that no Chief shall be removed from office or punished with suspension unless he is given an opportunity of being heard : Provided further that the requirements of the second proviso above shall not apply : (i) in the case where the order of removal or punishment or suspension is awarded on account of his being convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude ; (ii) in the case of order of suspension pending inquiry." From the above proviso of Section 6 it provides only for suspension pending inquiry the procedure for making enquiry and imposing of penalty after enquiry is not provided. There is also no provision in the Act to prescribe a procedure for conducting the enquiry against the Chiefs or Headmen. 14. Section 21 of the Act gives power to the Executive Committee to make Rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act with approval of the District Council, but no such Rules have been made till date. 15. In the instant case, the report of the Inquiry Officer was examined by the two Executive Members on being authorised by the Executive Committee. A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.5.2001 passed by the two Executive Members of the respondent No. 2 shows that the Executive Members were sitting as appellate authority over the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The main findings of the two Executive Members is that the Constitution of Hima Nongstoin which was framed in the year 1959 prior to the enactment of the 1959 Act was totally ignored by the Inquiry Officer. The two Executive Members also came to the findings that the prevailing custom of the Elaka as per the said Constitution has not been followed. 16. The two Executive Members also came to the findings that the prevailing custom of the Elaka as per the said Constitution has not been followed. 16. The two Executive Members did not consider the fact that the constitution of Hima Nongstoin could not be taken into consideration as it was not approved by the District Council and there is amply evidence in support of this finding of the Inquiry Officer from the evidence of DW-1-Shri W. Syiemiieh who is an officer of District Council who clearly stated in his cross-examination that the prevailing customs in Nongstoin have not been codified. This witness also stated that there is no request or prayer made to the Executive Committee for codification or approval of the constitution of Hima Nongstoin. The Inquiry Officer has rightly held that the constitution of Hima Nongstoin cannot be taken into consideration without being approved by the Executive Committee or by the District Council. Therefore, since the constitution has not been approved and custom has not been codified till date, the prevailing customs in the Elaka has to be proved by evidence on records which has been done by the Inquiry Officer in the instant case. 17. In the case of U. Lebi Singh Basan and Ors., Petitioners v. The Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills District Council, Shillong and Ors., Opposite Parties reported in 1989 1 GLR 59 it was held that the custom or customary practice may have the force of law and it is essential that it should be ancient, invariable, certain and reasonable. But a custom which is opposed to law and public policy is not a valid custom. 18. In the case of Khiteswar Phukan, Petitioner v. Smt. Sowala Gogoi Alias Phukan, Opposite Party reported in 1990 1 GLR 364 it was held that the essential attributes of custom and it must be ancient, certain, reasonable and it must be observed without interruption and it must be uniform and obligatory. It must also be not immoral or opposed to public policy but it must be established by clear and unambiguous evidence. 19. It must also be not immoral or opposed to public policy but it must be established by clear and unambiguous evidence. 19. Therefore, in absence of codification, the custom and customary practice has to be proved by clear and unambiguous evidence which in the instant case the Inquiry Officer has devolved at length into the matter and came to the final conclusion that the action of the petitioner was not violative of the custom prevailing in the Elaka. 20. The findings of the two Executive Members that the Constitution of Hima Nongstoin which has not bean codified or approved by the District Council has to be followed is not correct as the prevailing custom has to be proved only by clear evidence which was already done by the Inquiry Officer. 21. For the, reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the two Executive Members cannot sit in appeal over the report of the Inquiry Officer as the two Executive Members are not the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authorities cannot delegate its power to the two Executive Members as the power of disciplinary authority vests purely with the respondent No. 2. Secondly, the finding of the two Executive Members relying on the constitution of Hima Nongstoin which was not approved by the District Council nor the custom is codified by the said constitution is totally wrong and the finding therefore is contrary to the provision of Section 3 of the Act. 22. In view of the above position, the order of the Executive Committee passed on 24.5.2001 (Annexure 10) directing for fresh inquiry by the Judge of District Council Court, Shillong and by the Magistrate, First Class. Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong is also not tenable in law. 23. In absence of any provision in the Act nor any Rules were framed with regard to the procedure of conducting of disciplinary authority there under has provided under Section 21 of the Act, it opens for a free hand to the respondents authority to adopt any method and means to punish the person concerned which may result in napotism, favouritism and against the principles of fair play and natural justice. In the instant case, I find there is a violation of the principal of natural justice as the petitioner who has been subjected to a detail and valid inquiry before the Inquiry Officer has been made to be subjected again to another inquiry on the same charges and against same allegations for which the inquiry was already completed. The order for second inquiry is found to be mala fide, vindictive and against principal of natural justice as the fresh inquiry was ordered only on the basis of an un-codified and un-approve constitution of the Hima which cannot be taken as legal documents in the eye of law without being approved by the competent authority. The two Executive Members by acting as appellate authority against the findings of the Inquiry Officer had acted in a mariner which is not permissible in law. Consequently, the order of the Executive Committee dated 24.5.2001 passed solely on the finding of the two Executive Members in their report dated 22.5.2001 is also not tenable in law, Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure 10) passed by the two Executive Members and the order dated 24.5.2001 (Annexure 9) passed by the respondent No. 2 and the letter dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure 8) issued by the Secretary, Executive Committee Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong directing for fresh inquiry against the petitioner are hereby set aside and quashed. 24. The respondent No. 2 shall act on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 30.3,2001 as in Annexure 6 to this writ petition and to apply its mind to the said inquiry report and pass necessary orders keeping in view the above observations made by this Court. In other words since the petitioner is exonerated of all the charges made against him in the report and findings of the inquiry officer dated 30.3.2001 he shall be reinstated as Syiem of Hima Nongstoin and the respondent No. 2 shall pass necessary order to that effect. 25. For the aforesaid reason, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 26. Before parting with the records it is observed that although the Act was passed in the year 1959 and amended from time to time, no Rules have been framed under the Act as provided under Section21 of the Act. 25. For the aforesaid reason, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 26. Before parting with the records it is observed that although the Act was passed in the year 1959 and amended from time to time, no Rules have been framed under the Act as provided under Section21 of the Act. Many cases of this nature has come up before this Court in which the Executive Committee of the District Council has taken disciplinary action against the Chiefs and Headmen under the Act but it is regretted that till date no provision in the Act nor Rules were framed to prescribe a procedure for conduct of inquiry against the Chiefs or Headmen falling within the jurisdiction of the District Council. There is also no prescribed period for conduct of the inquiry and a manner in which the inquiry has to be conducted. The status of the officer competent to conduct the inquiry in respect of the cases of Chiefs and Headmen have not been prescribed. This Court hope and trust that the authorities of the District Council shall look into the matter and make provision in the Act or in the Rules in this regard within a reasonable time in order to regulate the procedure for conduct of inquiry under the Act.