JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents. By way of this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Commandant, 1st IR Bn., Mizoram removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. 2. Facts of the case as projected in the writ petition may be briefly noted. 3. Petitioner was serving as Constable in the 1st IR Bn. A show cause notice dated 22.12.2008 was issued to the petitioner by the Commandant proposing to hold an enquiry against him under section 7 of the Police Act read with Rule 1044 of the Mizoram Police Manual. The charge against the petitioner was that though he was granted earned leave for 20 days from 29.10.2008 to 17.11.2008, he overstayed his leave and reported for duty only on 1.12.2008 thereby remaining absent for 13 days without obtaining leave or prior permission from the competent authority. Petitioner was also charged with developing a habit of consuming liquor and absenting himself from duty under the influence of liquor. For such misconduct, he was given several punishments in the past. Petitioner was, therefore, charged with indiscipline, misconduct, negligence in the discharge of duty which is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force like the police. 4. While the reply of the petitioner to the above show cause notice was being considered, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Commandant on 16.01.2009 on the charge that during the pendency of the first proceeding, the petitioner again absented himself from duty for 19 days w.e.f. 19.12.2008 to 6.01.2009 without leave or prior permission of the competent authority. 5. Petitioner submitted his written statement but the same was found to be not satisfactory. 6. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Enquiry Officer in his report dated 6.04.2009 stated that the petitioner had appeared before him in the preliminary hearing and admitted the charges framed against him. Since the petitioner had admitted his guilt, Enquiry Officer took the view that there was no need for proceeding further with the enquiry and accordingly closed the same with the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. 7. Since the petitioner had admitted his guilt, Enquiry Officer took the view that there was no need for proceeding further with the enquiry and accordingly closed the same with the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. 7. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant thereafter passed the impugned order dated 27.4.2009 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. It was declared that the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner would be treated as EOL. 8. It appears that the petitioner had submitted appeal against the penalty imposed before the appellate authority. The appeal was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a revision petition before the revisional authority i.e. the Director General of Police, Mizoram, who passed the order dated 20.05.2010 rejecting the revision petition and upholding the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. 9. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 10. Contention of the petitioner is that in the enquiry, no presenting officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority, which has vitiated the enquiry proceeding. Petitioner was also not served with a copy of the enquiry report and, therefore, was not given an opportunity to submit a representation against the enquiry report. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 11. Respondents have filed affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and, thereafter, the impugned order of penalty was passed. Statutory appeal was filed by the petitioner after more than 3 months as against the period of 2 months for filing appeal as provided under the Police Manual. Appellate authority had rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of being barred by limitation. Petitioner was a regular absentee. Departmental enquiry was instituted against him by appointing an Enquiry Officer. On his own admission, Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. In the circumstances of the case, penalty of removal from service is justified. However, it is admitted that no presenting officer was appointed in the departmental enquiry as no regular hearing was needed. Petitioner is a member of a disciplined force and, therefore, he was required to maintain discipline inspite of personal difficulties. 12. In the circumstances of the case, penalty of removal from service is justified. However, it is admitted that no presenting officer was appointed in the departmental enquiry as no regular hearing was needed. Petitioner is a member of a disciplined force and, therefore, he was required to maintain discipline inspite of personal difficulties. 12. Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the same was not preceded by a free and fair enquiry. He submits that no presenting officer was appointed to present the case of the department and the Enquiry Officer himself functioned as the presenting officer, which vitiated the enquiry. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Salam Kesho Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in 2011 (1) GLT 287. He also submits that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner thereby denying him the opportunity to make a representation against the proposed penalty. The aforesaid omission is a vital one, materially affecting the impugned order. His further submission is that the so called admission of the petitioner was in fact a qualified statement whereby he only admitted to unauthorized absence on account of the serious illness of his minor daughter. This was misconstrued as an admission of guilt in totality. He finally submits that taking an overall view of the matter, the impugned punishment is excessive and harsh and in the contextual facts and circumstances of the case, it would appear to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned order and for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all back wages. 13. Per contra, Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram submits that when the petitioner had admitted before the Enquiry Officer about the charges framed against him, further enquiry was not necessary. He also submits that petitioner was a member of a disciplined force like the police and, therefore, he was required to maintain the highest standard of discipline despite personal problems which he faced. Misconduct of the petitioner was not related or relatable to only one instance. The past record of the petitioner's indisciplined behavior compelled the disciplinary authority to pass the impugned order of removal from service. Misconduct of the petitioner was not related or relatable to only one instance. The past record of the petitioner's indisciplined behavior compelled the disciplinary authority to pass the impugned order of removal from service. He further submits that petitioner's appeal could not be considered by the appellate authority as it was filed belatedly and the revisional authority, after due consideration, had affirmed the penalty imposed. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the penalty imposed and the writ petition should be dismissed. 14. Submissions made have been considered. 15. It is true that the petitioner was a constable in the 1st IR Bn., Mizoram and being a member of the police force, he was required to maintain the highest standard of discipline notwithstanding personal problems and tragedies faced by the petitioner. But at the same time, it also does not mean that a policeman or a member of disciplined force is denuded of the right to fair procedure and procedural safeguards in the course of a departmental proceeding. It is well settled that a departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer discharges the duty of a quasi-judicial authority. He is an independent authority assigned with the task of finding out the truth. Therefore, he cannot act as a mouthpiece of the disciplinary authority and take up the role of a presenting officer in the absence of a presenting officer. This court in the case of Salam Kesho Singh (supra) had held that it is well settled that an Enquiry Officer cannot assume the role of a judge and also of a prosecutor. Even if the relevant service rules is silent about the appointment of a presenting officer, absence of a presenting officer will make the enquiry completely vitiated as the Enquiry Officer cannot be allowed to assume the role of a judge as well as of a prosecutor. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , it was held that the Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in a position of an independent adjudicator and as such, he is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority. 16. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , it was held that the Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in a position of an independent adjudicator and as such, he is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority. 16. The stand taken by the respondents that since it was only a preliminary enquiry and that the delinquent had admitted his guilt, therefore, there was no necessity for appointment of a presenting officer cannot be accepted. The Mizoram Police Manual does not provide for any preliminary enquiry after issue of show-cause notice under Rule 1037. The presenting officer is required to be appointed along with the Enquiry Officer. It is the duty of the presenting officer to present the case of the disciplinary authority before the quasi-judicial authority. That was not done in this case. The Enquiry Officer himself took up the materials brought by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner which was explained to him and when the petitioner admitted to the two instances of remaining absent from duty because of the serious illness of his daughter, he reported that since the petitioner had admitted his guilt, no further enquiry was necessary. 17. It is seen from the impugned order that the disciplinary authority had considered the enquiry report and on the basis of the same, had imposed the punishment of removal from service. Rule 1039 of the Mizoram Police Manual provides that after the enquiry is completed, the person charged shall be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiry authority and called upon to show cause so as to enable him to make his submission by way of a representation with regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority passes its order imposing the penalty. Admittedly, copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. Without giving the petitioner an opportunity to examine the enquiry report and to represent against the same, the disciplinary authority imposed the impugned punishment. The said course of action is not only in violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Mizoram Police Manual but is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 18. At this stage, we may refer to the statement of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. The translated copy of his statement, as placed on record, reads as under:-- On Dec. 18. At this stage, we may refer to the statement of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. The translated copy of his statement, as placed on record, reads as under:-- On Dec. 2000, I was enrolled as constable in the 2nd IR Bn. 1 was under Basic Training at PTC Lungverh for a period of 9 months, and after finishing training I was posted at 2nd IR Bn Hqrs at Khawzawl. As I prayed, I was attached to Traffic Police for some time. After I served 4 months at Traffic Police, I was transferred and posted to 1st IR Bn, Mualvum. Again, I was posted out to Saiphai Post and I could not remember the exact date, but I think it was during 2007. On dt. 29.10.08, I was granted 20 days leave with permission from my authority. I had to resume my duty on 18.11.08, but my baby Lallawmzuali (6) was suffering from ear pain and dumb and I had to attend my ill daughter for some time. Due to this reason, I failed to resume my duty at the right time. On 19.12.08, I again left hqrs without taking prior permission from my authority. This act of mine was due to family problem and bad condition of my daughter. In this matter, all these are my fault and I admit the charges framed against me and plead guilty. I beg you kindly to forgive me in this matter. While it is true that the petitioner had admitted to the two instances of remaining absent from duty, the same was explained as being on account of the illness of his minor daughter, though as already noticed above, he ought to have taken the permission of the competent authority. It has also been brought on record that the State Medical Board had examined the case of petitioner's minor child and has referred her for better treatment to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati. It is the contention of the petitioner that though he would be entitled to medical reimbursement, he would have to meet the expenses at the first instance and, therefore, he was trying to arrange the required fund. In such a distressed frame of mind, the two instances of absence from duty had occurred. In so far the earlier instances of absence are concerned, petitioner was already awarded various punishments which are on record. In such a distressed frame of mind, the two instances of absence from duty had occurred. In so far the earlier instances of absence are concerned, petitioner was already awarded various punishments which are on record. Furthermore, though one of the charges against the petitioner was that he had developed a habit of consuming liquor and absenting from duty under the influence of liquor, there is no admission by the petitioner to the said charge. This charge was, therefore, required to be enquired into. 19. The appellate authority also had adopted a mechanical approach by rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the technical ground of delay. This aspect was not gone into by the revisional authority when he rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. 20. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter, the Court is of the view that the impugned punishment was imposed without following the due procedure. Accordingly, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is hereby set aside and quashed. He shall be reinstated forthwith but without any back wages, except the subsistence allowance due. 21. The authority will, however, be at liberty to start the enquiry afresh by appointing a new Enquiry Officer and presenting officer. It will be in the interest of the petitioner himself to cooperate with such an enquiry, if held. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed