1. The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned proceeding of Tribunal Case No. 9 of 2009 conducted against the petitioner by the Tribunal and its subsequent order of dismissal passed by the Secretary, Nagaland Public Service Commission ('NPSC'), dated 31.3.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case is that while the petitioner was working as U.D.A. in the office of NPSC she was illegally terminated by, an order dated 31.3.2010 by the Secretary, NPSC. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Typist and by subsequent promotions she reached to the post of U.D.A. 3. While the petitioner was functioning as U.D.A. NPSC conducted an exam and after completion of the whole process of the examination there was an allegation that there was swapping of answer scripts in the said examination held on 2008. In this connection, Secretary, NPSC placed the petitioner under suspension by an order dated 2.3.2009 on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and departmental proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Secretary, NPSC vide Memorandum dated 22.7.2009 proposed to hold an inquiry and after completion of the inquiry the petitioner was dismissed from her service. 4. Being aggrieved by the order/memorandum dated 31.3.2010 and proceeding by the Tribunal the petitioner approached this court by way of this instant writ petition. Learned counsel Mr. P. Khataniar appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that in case of any inquiry has to be conducted, rule 14(1) of the Nagaland Public Service Commission (Chairman, Members and Staff) Regulations, 2008 shall be applied but in this case while conducting the inquiry the Commission has conducted the inquiry under Nagaland Government Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Learned counsel further argued that the Office Memorandum dated 12.7.1976 at p. 62 annexed as Annexure A/17 to the writ petition was completely ignored because the said Memorandum shows the procedure that before and after inquiry Vigilance Commission need to be consulted which has not been complied with in this instant case so the entire proceeding of the Tribunal is in violation of the Rules and Office Memorandum, so it need to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the NPSC Mr. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the NPSC Mr. N. Mozhui submits that NPSC does not have any separate conduct Rules so they are guided by the Nagaland Government Service and Conduct Rules and accordingly action has been taken against the petitioner so there is nothing wrong in the order of dismissal or proceeding so the instant writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Nagaland Public Service Commission (Chairman, Members and Staff) Regulations, 2008 rule 14(1) reads as : - "The Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, shall apply to the Secretary and all the other members of the staff of the Commission." 7. On mere perusal of the above Rules it is understood that the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 is applicable. But rule is silent. In my view in future Government should come out with a clear cut Rules and Policies. However, question remains further before me is whether consultation with Vigilance Commission is necessary before an inquiry and after an inquiry against any staff of the NPSC or not. 8. Office Memorandum dated 12.7.1976 at p. 62 annexed as Annexure A/17 reads as : "2. Whenever a complaint is received by the Disciplinary Authority on the integrity of a Government Servant may take a decision in consultation with the Vigilance Commission, whenever necessary, whether any action is to be taken by him on that complaint or not. If he finds that there is substance in the complaint, he should get it investigated or enquired into through departmental agencies or through the agencies of the Vigilance Commission if it so advises. The result of this enquiry/investigation should then be reported to the Vigilance Commission who will advice the Disciplinary Authority regarding the course of further action to be taken. The Vigilance Commission should be consulted even if the Disciplinary Authority does not think a preliminary enquiry to be necessary of even if the Disciplinary Authority after a preliminary enquiry comes to the conclusion that no further action is necessary. 3. In cases in which it is decided to institute formal Disciplinary Proceeding, the Vigilance Commission is to be furnished with full record of the enquiry for advice as to the further course of action. This ensures that no complaint on which action may be warranted is filed without appropriate action and that action is not initiated in a case where it is not warranted. This ensures that no complaint on which action may be warranted is filed without appropriate action and that action is not initiated in a case where it is not warranted. Malicious and various enquires are prevented and fair play is enquired both ways. 4. The enquiry report of the disciplinary proceedings should be submitted to the Vigilance Commission for advice as to the further course of action. The Vigilance Commission will act only in an advisory capacity but if disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the advice of the Vigilance Commission, a second reference should be made to the Vigilance Commission with reasons to be stated by the disciplinary authority requesting the Commission to reconsider its advice. If the Vigilance Commission reiterates its advice but the Disciplinary Authority rejects it, the case will be mentioned as such by the Vigilance Commission in its annual report which has to be placed before the Legislative Assembly. The Government have to examine the reasons for non-acceptance of the advice of the Vigilance Commission while laying the Commission report before the Legislative Assemble." 9. On perusal of the above Office Memorandum it appears to me that consultation with the Vigilance Commission is necessary for free and fair proceeding. From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that Vigilance Commission has not been consulted so, I am of the view that the inquiry is incomplete and basing on such incomplete inquiry Secretary, NPSC should not have taken any view or decision, therefore, this court has no other option but to intervene with the proceeding of the Tribunal, accordingly, Tribunal Case No. 9 of 2009 as well as the dismissal order dated 31.3.2010 are quashed and set aside. 10. With the above observations and directions writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. _____________