JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This is the 3rd journey of the petitioner to this Court challenging the order at Annexure-A/13 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing him from service as well as the order at Annexure-A/15 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was serving as Field Assistant in the respondents' office, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 07.09.1982 on the allegation that he had been asked to collect 100 bags of cement from Loktak Main Store to Leimatak. However, the cement did not reach at Leimatak. The petitioner was directed to give reply within four days to the above allegations. Again by orders dated 21.08.1982 and 22.10.1982, the respondents framed charge on the basis of the above allegations and sought for a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner replied denying all the allegations. After receipt of the reply the Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service by order dated 04.10.1982. Again on re-consideration, the order of removal from service was recalled and by order dated 22.10.1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 04.10.1982. The petitioner was directed to show cause again on the allegation that he received 103 bags of cement delivered from Valve House Sub-Store but did not deliver the same at the destination. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the allegations, but by order dated 04.07.1983 he was removed from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal was not considered, as a result of which the petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court by filing Civil Rule No. 547 of 1998 for quashing the order of removal from service. The said writ application was disposed of on 25.06.1988 directing the petitioner to file a fresh appeal enclosing with other earlier appeals and the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order within a specific time. In compliance of the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was not disposed of and a contempt petition was filed. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected on 10.11.1999. 3. Challenging the said order the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 442 of 2002. In compliance of the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was not disposed of and a contempt petition was filed. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected on 10.11.1999. 3. Challenging the said order the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 442 of 2002. By Judgment and Order dated 04.07.1983, learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court set aside the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the respondents to take back the petitioner into service and further directed for payment of back wages as per law. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondents in Writ Appeal being W.A. No. 313 of 2003. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court upholding the order of the learned Single Judge directed the appellants/authorities to take back the respondent-writ petitioner into service and proceed with denovo enquiry after furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. It was further directed that while taking back the petitioner in service, the present respondents shall be at liberty to keep the petitioner under suspension. In compliance of the order, the petitioner was reinstated in service and suspended again by a composite order dated 29.09.2003 and was further directed to submit his written reply. The petitioner was not supplied the enquiry report in spite of the order passed by the Court. In the reply submitted by the petitioner it was specifically stated that in absence of the enquiry report it was not possible to give a complete reply. However, on the basis of the said reply he was again removed from service at Annexure-A/13. The appeal preferred by him at Annexure-A/14 was also rejected at Annexure-A/15. Challenging the above two orders at Annexure-A/13 and Annexure-A/15, the present writ application has been filed. 4. Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of order passed by the Gauhati High Court, copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and he was asked to give a reply. We, therefore directed the learned senior counsel, Mr. N. Ibotombi, appearing for the respondents to produce the records of the proceedings. It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel that no such report is available on record except a preliminary report. We, therefore directed the learned senior counsel, Mr. N. Ibotombi, appearing for the respondents to produce the records of the proceedings. It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel that no such report is available on record except a preliminary report. We also find from the record that no regular proceeding appointing an enquiry officer was undertaken. Under such circumstances, we have no other option but to set aside the orders at Annexure-A/13 and Annexure-A/15 respectively. The Disciplinary Authority is to start denovo proceeding by appointing an Enquiry Officer and giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, we allow the writ application and set aside the orders at Annexure-A/13 and Annexure-A/15 respectively and direct the respondents to take back the petitioner into service immediately in accordance with law. The respondents shall be at liberty to hold a denovo enquiry if so advised by appointing an enquiry officer in accordance with the Rule and giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the event, the respondents decide to hold denovo enquiry, an order shall be passed as to how the period of suspension is to be treated. In the event, the denovo enquiry is not initiated, the respondents shall treat the period of suspension as on duty.