Amitava Roy, J.- The petitioner, who at the relevant time was a constable with the 3rd Battalion, MAP, seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievances conse­quent upon his removal from service as a dis­ciplinary measure. 2. I have heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Govt Advocate, Mizoram for the respondents. 3. Sans the unnecessary details, the petitioner's pleaded case, in short, is that he having been appointed as a constable with the Mizoram Armed Police on 15.05.1996, was eventually confirmed in the said rank vide the order dated 12.10.1999 of the Comman­dant, 3rd Battalion, MAP, Aizawl. He was placed under suspension on 12.11.2002 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him. Eventually, a memorandum of charge dated 29.11.2002 was served on him intimating the decision to initiate an enquiry against him U/s.7 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act) as well as Rule, 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part- III on the following head of charge: "Article of Charge framed against C/762 C. Malsawmlianaof3 MAP. That you are involved in West Phaileng PS Case No.25/02 dt. 12.11.2002 u/s 448/341/3267 34 IPC. The above acts and behaviours of C/762 C. Malsawmliana of 3rd Bn.M AP is grave miscon­duct, negligence of duty and unbecoming of a Police Officer violating the existing norms and rules of the Department thereby subjecting him­self liable for punishment u/s.7 of Indian Police Act (Act V) of 1861 r/w Rule 66 of Assam Police Mammal Part-III." 4. The statement of imputation of miscon­duct in support of the above article of charge, the list of documents and the witnesses pro­posed to be relied upon by the disciplinary authority in support of this charge were also furnished to him. The statement of imputation of his conduct revealed the allegation that while he was temporarily posted at Phuldungsei Out Post w.e.f 04.09.2002, he on 10.11.2002 alongwith C/604 Edentharmawia and C/756 Lalnunhlima had tormented and assaulted Pu Lalbiaknunga, thereby injuring him seriously requiring his admission in the hospital. Regis­tration of West Phaileng P.S. Case No.25/2002 under Section 448/341/326/34 IPC against him for the said incident was also re­ferred to. He was thus charged of grave mis­conduct, negligence of duty and his acts of behaviour were construed to be unbecoming of police officer warranting disciplinary action. 5. Regis­tration of West Phaileng P.S. Case No.25/2002 under Section 448/341/326/34 IPC against him for the said incident was also re­ferred to. He was thus charged of grave mis­conduct, negligence of duty and his acts of behaviour were construed to be unbecoming of police officer warranting disciplinary action. 5. The petitioner submitted written state­ment denying his involvement in the aforemen­tioned police case. While asserting that he had been rendering his services to the best of his ability, he stated that on 09.11.2002 there was a quarrel between his friend C/604 Edenth-armawia and Biakmunga and that on the next day in the morning, he alongwith Edenthar-mawia and C/706 Lalnunhlima had visited the house of Biakmunga to enquire about the hap­penings. The petitioner contended that on their visit, Biakmunga suddenly attacked Edenthar-mawia and deal t fist blows on him for which, the latter started to bleed through his nose. The petitioner admitted his intervention to separate the two, however with the intention of pacifying them. The disciplinary proceeding was continued thereafter and an Inquiry report was sub­mitted on 03.03.2003 by the Asstt. Comman­dant, 3rd, MAP, the Inquiry Officer holding that the charge was proved. The order of re­moval dated 04.07.2003 passed by the Commandant, 3rd MAP, Aizawl followed, he, as the disciplinary authority agreed with the ultimate conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner thereafter preferred two ap­peals dated 05.03.2004 & 01.07.2004 be­fore the DIG (Range), Mizoram Police Gen­eral Headquarters, Aizawl which were even­tually dismissed on 27.05.2005, The peti­tioner has also brought on record the order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Aizawl in West Phaileng RS. Case No.25/2002 disposing of the same by com­pounding the offences involved. 6. The State respondents, in their affida­vit, while endorsing the action taken, have stated on solemn affirmation that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no presenting officer was appointed on behalf of the disci­plinary authority. According to them, the pe­titioner on being asked about his view with regard to the appointment of a defence assis­tant had declined in writing to do so. While asserting that the documents contemplated to be relied by the disciplinary authority had been provided to the petitioner, the respondents have contended that the charge levelled against him was serious and as the same stood proved in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority having concurred with the findings of the In­quiry Officer, awarded the penalty of removal. While asserting that the documents contemplated to be relied by the disciplinary authority had been provided to the petitioner, the respondents have contended that the charge levelled against him was serious and as the same stood proved in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority having concurred with the findings of the In­quiry Officer, awarded the penalty of removal. That during the pendency of the departmen­tal proceeding, the petitioner was involved in Aizawl P.S. CaseNo.486/03 under Section 376/511/326IPC was also referred to. The respondents contended that all the witnesses of the disciplinary authority had been exam­ined in presence of the petitioner and that though he was afforded the opportunity of cross-examining them, he refused to do so. The penalties awarded to the petitioner for his acts of misconduct in the past were also narrated in the affidavit. According to the re­spondents, the closure of the police case on compounding of the offences was of no sig­nificance vis-a-vis the disciplinary proceed­ing against the petitioner. According to them, having regard to the gravity of the charge, the penalty of removal was commensurate thereto. Though, the parties have exchanged ad­ditional pleadings, contents thereof being sub­stantially in repetition of the above, those are not detailed herein for the sake of brevity. 7. Mr. Meitei has assiduously argued that the charge levelled against the petitioner be­ing visibly vague, the imputation of miscon­duct against him is patently frivolous and on that ground alone the disciplinary proceeding ought to be adjudged as non est. As admit­tedly, no Presenting officer had been ap­pointed by the disciplinary authority, the In­quiry Officer acted as a Judge as well as a Prosecutor and thus the proceedings of the enquiry being obviously in violation of the prin­ciples of natural justice, the impugned order of removal is illegal null and void, he urged. Mr. Meitei further contended that it is clear from the inquiry report that the petitioner had been denied the opportunity of cross-exam­ining all the witnesses of the disciplinary au­thority and this having vitiated the proceed­ings, the same ought to be declared non exis­tent. According to him, as the petitioner was ill-equipped academically and intellectually to perceive and appreciate the consequences of the want of a defence assistant in the pro­ceedings of the nature in hand, it was the sol­emn obligation on the part of the Inquiry Of­ficer to explain the implications thereof. According to him, as the petitioner was ill-equipped academically and intellectually to perceive and appreciate the consequences of the want of a defence assistant in the pro­ceedings of the nature in hand, it was the sol­emn obligation on the part of the Inquiry Of­ficer to explain the implications thereof. The Inquiry Officer having failed to do so, the petitioner's disinclination to appoint a defence assistant for lack of understanding of the im­plication thereof is of no decisive relevance, he urged. 8. The learned counsel argued that not only the disposal of the police case was a factor to be taken note of in support of the petitioner's plea of innocence, the mechani­cal rejection of his appeal testifies the prede­termined mind of the disciplinary authority. In all, Mr. Meitei urged upon this Court to inter­fere with the impugned order of removal in the interest of justice. In reinforcement of his arguments, Mr. Meitei placed reliance on the decision of this Court in (1984) 1 GLR 40: Laldula, Hreduna, Zolina Vs. The Union Territory of Mizoram & Ors. 9. The learned State counsel as against this has urged that the petitioner having admitted the charge it was inessential to appoint a pre­senting officer in the instant case. Further he having unequivocally declined in writing to appoint his defence assistant, his plea to the contrary at this belated point of time is per se untenable. While asserting that the disciplin­ary proceeding had been conducted in me­ticulous compliance of the relevant Rules, the learned State counsel has pleaded on the ba­sis of the official records that the petitioner had been accorded due opportunity of cross-examining all the witnesses of the disciplinary authority. She reiterated that not only the charge against the petitioner stood proved, having regard to his conduct in the post, his retention in service was rightly construed to be detrimental to the discipline of the force. The learned State counsel, therefore, pleaded against any interference with the impugned proceedings as well as the penalty of removal. 10. The pleadings on record alongwith the documents available and the arguments ad­vanced have been duly considered. A con­joint reading of the article of charge and the statement of imputation of misconduct in the opinion of this Court negates the plea of vagueness of the imputation levelled against the petitioner, so as to render him unable to effectively answer the same. The pleadings on record alongwith the documents available and the arguments ad­vanced have been duly considered. A con­joint reading of the article of charge and the statement of imputation of misconduct in the opinion of this Court negates the plea of vagueness of the imputation levelled against the petitioner, so as to render him unable to effectively answer the same. As a matter of fact, his written statement makes it amply clear that he had understood the charge to the full and had explained the circumstances leading to his involvement in Phaileng P.S. Case No. 25/2002. 11. That no presenting office was ap­pointed by the disciplinary authority to con­duct the proceedings is an admitted fact. The records of the disciplinary proceeding also demonstrate this. The order dated 17.12.2002 in the said proceeding reveals that the Inquiry Officer had enquire of the petitioner of his choice of a defence assistant and he was given an opportunity to convey his reply on 19.12.2002. On that date, the petitioner de­clined in writing to avail the service of the defence assistant. This has been recorded in clear terms in the order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the Inquiry Officer. The records of the disciplinary proceed­ing disclose that on 06.02.2003 the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Inquiry Officer and a copy thereof was supplied to him. The witnesses of the disciplinary author­ity were thereafter examined on 11.02.2003 in his presence and a copy each of their state­ments was furnished to him. The Inquiry re­port was thereafter submitted on 03.03.2003. Though, in this report the Inquiry Officer par­ticularly mentioned that the petitioner had been given the opportunity to cross-examine the | witnesses of the disciplinary authority, but he declined to do so, there is no reference of this observation in the order dated 11.02.2003 synchronizing with the event of recording of the evidence of the witnesses of the disciplin­ary authority on that day. This is of formidable significance in view of the petitioner's plea of being denied the opportunity of cross-exam­ining the witnesses. 12. Though, Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-Ill detailing the procedure to be adopted in the proceedings for awarding major penalties as disciplinary measure does not in clear terms mandate the appointment of a presenting officer having regard to the basic postulation of fairness in action such an essentiality cannot be compromised. 12. Though, Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-Ill detailing the procedure to be adopted in the proceedings for awarding major penalties as disciplinary measure does not in clear terms mandate the appointment of a presenting officer having regard to the basic postulation of fairness in action such an essentiality cannot be compromised. In absence of a presenting officer, the Inquiry Of­ficer has to act as the Prosecutor and the Judge, a concept anathema to the canons in the natural justice with which the proceeding has to be imperatively informed. As the indis­pensable demand of a valid disciplinary pro­ceeding is fairness and transparency, the omis­sion to appoint a presenting officer to con­duct a disciplinary proceeding has vitiated the exercise in the present case. 13. The records of the disciplinary pro­ceeding demonstrate that even before the witnesses of the disciplinary authority had been examined in support of the charge, the statement of the petitioner had been recorded in connection therewith. This assumes signifi­cance in view of the stand taken by the re­spondents that he having admitted the charge it was inessential to appoint a presenting of­ficer. A plain reading of Rule 66 indicates the stages of the disciplinary proceeding to be compulsory followed. The same does not contemplate by any means recording of the statement of the delinquent officer on the charge before the examination of the wit­nesses of the disciplinary authority in support thereof. 14. Not only, Rule 66 does not contem­plate in clear terms the engagement of a de­fence assistant by the delinquent officer, as referred to hereinabove, the records reveal that the Inquiry Officer had enquired of the petitioner as to whether he would like to avail the service of such an assistant and was granted time to decide on it and intimate his decision. He did so in writing expressing his disinclination. Evidently in none of his appeals did he take up this plea. The challenge in the instant proceeding based on this contention therefore lakes persuasion. 15. The disposal of the prosecution case for his involvement in which he had been pro­ceeded with for misconduct is of no import. Having regard to the pleas taken in his ap­peals, the rejection thereof as well is not of any decisive relevance. 16. The challenge in the instant proceeding based on this contention therefore lakes persuasion. 15. The disposal of the prosecution case for his involvement in which he had been pro­ceeded with for misconduct is of no import. Having regard to the pleas taken in his ap­peals, the rejection thereof as well is not of any decisive relevance. 16. Be that as it may in the facts and cir­cumstances of the case the procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceeding can­not be endorsed to be in total adherence to the letter and spirit of Rule 66 under which admittedly the same had been initiated to be pursued. The failure of the disciplinary author­ity to appoint a Presenting Officer, lack of convincing materials to hold that the petitioner had been afforded due opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses of the disciplinary authority and the recording of his statement before the examination of the witnesses in support of the charge, have rendered the dis­ciplinary proceeding unsustainable in law. The disciplinary authority having propossed to conduct the proceedings in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, Rule 66 of the Assam Police Mannual, Part-Ill, it ought to be vig­orously held to the mandate thereof. The or­der of removal, therefore cannot be sustained as well and is thus interfered with. 17. The above notwithstanding, consid­ering the seriousness of the charge as well as the Force in which the petitioner belonged at the relevant point of time, this Court does not consider it appropriate to direct his immedi­ate reinstatement with consequential benefits. This is more so, as the present intervention has been only due to procedural lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority. Conse­quently while annulling the impugned order of removal, this Court leaves the respondents at liberty to take steps as may be deemed fit and proper to conduct a de novo disciplinary proceeding on the same charge against him if so advised, however strictly in accordance with the law applicable.lt is however made clear that if no departmental inquiry as or­dered by this Court is initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months here from, he would be reinstated in service. The respondents would in that eventuality however decide on his claim for consequen­tial benefits, in accordance with the relevant Rules. The petition is allowed to the extent indi­cated hereinabove. No costs.