Heard Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.Modhuchandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner, who was serving as Havildar of the 5th Bn. Manipur Rifle was detailed for election duty in the 13th Lok Sabha Election in 1999 at 52/TML Assembly Constituency, which was held on 5.10.1999, along with other personnel of the Battalion. On 6.10.1999 at about 12.30 hrs. while the petitioner and his party were returning from Keiphundai towards Tamenglong Head Quarter, they were ambushed/attacked by underground elements with sophisticated arms and ammunitions near Keikao Village. The Commander of the party was over-powered by the extremists. None in the party including the petitioner fired a single round against the extremist. In that occurrence, the extremists snatched away some arms and ammunitions but no arms and ammunitions was snatched away from the petitioner. On 27.11.1999, the Commandant of the 5th Bn.of M.R. suspended the petitioner in contemplation of a departmental enquiry and issued a memorandum on 27.11.1999 informing the petitioner about the proposed enquiry in respect of the enclosed statement of article of charge. The petitioner was charged of dereliction of duty. On receiving the memorandum, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charge. The Departmental Enquiry was held by the then Dy.C.O., 2nd Bn. of M.R. who was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings of the enquiry to the disciplinary authority and the said findings were also communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.10.2000 with a direction to submit his representation/objection in respect of the said findings. The petitioner submitted his representation on 13.11.2000 to the Commandant, 5th Bn. Of M.R. The Commandant of the 5th Bn. Of M.R. issued an order on 31.1.2001 awarding major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner with immediate effect with a direction that he would be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period under suspension i.e. from 27.11.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 16.4.2001 to the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Ops-II) challenging the said dismissal order and he also filed a Writ Petition being WP(C) No.1775 of 2001 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said appeal within three days of the date of receipt of the order. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Ops-II) challenging the said dismissal order and he also filed a Writ Petition being WP(C) No.1775 of 2001 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said appeal within three days of the date of receipt of the order. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Ops-II) disposed of the appeal on 25.5.2001 by rejecting it. 3. The present writ petition has been filed praying mainly for setting aside the said dismissal order dated 31.1.2001 and for reinstating the petitioner to his service with retrospective effect. It is the case of the petitioner that the Departmental Enquiry against him was not proceeded properly and in accordance with the relevant rules and as such, the findings made in the said enquiry are not acceptable in the eye of law. Further, according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order, having been made on the basis of the findings of the said enquiry, is liable to be set aside. There is no dispute that this court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or otherwise of the manner in which the impugned decision of dismissal was arrived at. 4. On perusal of all relevant records including the records of the said Departmental Enquiry, I find that no presenting officer was appointed by the concerned authority in connection with said enquiry. Though the petitioner was only a Havildar, who could not be expected to have the knowledge of the relevant rules and law of the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer never informed the petitioner that he was entitled to appointment of defence assistant to defend his case. In the said memorandum dated 27.11.1999, the petitioner was asked to state in his written statement to be submitted within 10(ten) days about the fact if he desired to be heard in person. In the said enquiry, no defence assistant was engaged by the petitioner. As per records, none of the PWs examined during the said enquiry was cross-examined by the petitioner. It is quite obvious that in the absence of the defence assistant, the petitioner was not aware of the implications of his omission to cross-examine the PWs. 5. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was given opportunity of adducing evidence by producing DWs for his defence. It is quite obvious that in the absence of the defence assistant, the petitioner was not aware of the implications of his omission to cross-examine the PWs. 5. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was given opportunity of adducing evidence by producing DWs for his defence. On perusal of the statements of the PWs, it is ascertained that none of the PWs stated anything as to how and under what circumstances the said occurrence took place. Statements of the PWs are of formal nature. It is very strange as to how the Enquiry Officer came to the said findings about the guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charge without ascertaining about the facts and circumstances of the occurrence. 6. In the light of the above finding, one can reasonably conclude that the enquiry was not proceeded legally, fairly and properly. The enquiry was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned dismissal order dated 31.1.2001 which was passed on the findings of the said enquiry is not sustainable in the eye of law. The findings of the said Enquiry Officer as well as the impugned dismissal order are hereby set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be re-instated to his service. Since the findings of the enquiry and the impugned dismissal order are not quashed on the ground that the charges against the petitioner are not made out but on the finding that the proceedings have not been made under the relevant law and rules, nothing prevents the concerned authority from initiating a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the charges in accordance with the provisions of the relevant law and rules within a reasonable time, which is not to be more than four months from today. If fresh departmental enquiry is held against the petitioner, he shall be treated as under suspension from the date of his first suspension and he shall be paid the suspension allowances according to rules. The suspension allowances so fare due shall be paid within a period of 3(three) months from today if not paid earlier. If no such enquiry is initiated within the period prescribed, the petitioner is to be re-instated to his service with all the consequential benefits. 7. With this order and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.