Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 345 (GAU)

Jayanta Hasamsa v. State of Assam

2015-03-20

M.R.PATHAK

body2015
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mrinmay Khataniar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. The petitioner herein was serving as a Constable in Assam Police since 1985 in the Special Branch at Guwahati. In 1994, he was transferred to North Cachar Hills, Haflong as an Arms Branch Constable. During his tenure at N.C. Hills District, the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills District, Haflong, vide communication dated 20.12.2001 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner as to why any appropriate penalties should not be inflicted upon him for his gross negligence and remiss in duty as he was found absent from his duty on 19.10.2001 and 23.11.2001. But, with the said show cause notice dated 20.12.2001 to the petitioner, except the statement of allegation, no list of witnesses or documents were enclosed or annexed. 2. The petitioner not being aware of the charge made against him, he made several request to the concerned Disciplinary Authority to furnish the list of documents on the basis of which the charges against him were sought to be proved. Even then the petitioner without all those materials submitted his show cause reply on 02.01.2002. In his said reply, the petitioner submitted that on 19.10.2001, he was placed on Magazine Guard Duty from 8:00 am onwards and after his sentry duty between 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm was over and after flag down, with permission from his Commander Sri Dayal Das, he in the evening between 6:00 pm to 6:45 pm went out to take his meal in a nearby hotel and during said period of his absence, an inspection was done where he was found to be absent. In the said replay, the petitioner also stated that on 23.11.2001, his wife and his daughter fell sick and the petitioner being the only other member of his family, took them for treatment and after their medical examinations, dropped them at his home and rushed to report for his duty and duly reach for the afternoon role call at 2:00 pm and then he remained present for evening role call at 7:00 pm. The petitioner stated that for the first time he was found to be absent from his duty on that day for a genuine ground and as such he prayed for exoneration from the charges. 3. The petitioner also submitted that on the setting of the inquiry that was held for a day only, the authorities produced 3 witnesses before the Enquiry Officer Sri S.K. Dey, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), respondent No. 4, in which the petitioner was asked some questions and his statement was recorded. However, the authority did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses adduced by the authority and further he was neither informed about his valuable right to cross-examine the official witnesses nor he was given any opportunity to defend himself by a defence representative/co-worker and therefore, he was deprived of his valuable right to defend him properly and affectively. 4. The petitioner further stated that the prosecuting authority did not serve/furnish the copies of the documents produced in the inquiry on which charges were based and as such the petitioner, without knowing the contents of such documents, was kept in dark. Moreover, the petitioner was not furnished with Inquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and he is not aware as to the charges that were proved against him and that no second show notice, whatsoever given to him by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills District, Haflong, respondent No. 3, by his order dated 10.06.2002, removed the petitioner from his service with immediate effect. 5. Against the same petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 17.06.2002, before the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Silchar, the respondent No. 2 stating that he was removed from service without giving him any opportunity and that the impugned penalty is absolutely arbitrary and whimsical and disproportionate to the charges on its face value. The petitioner also submitted that he served the department for about 17 years and as an incidence of service, he was allotted a quarter in Haflong and after removing him from service, the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills vide order dated 14.07.2002, directed the petitioner to vacate the Government Quarter within 10 days. 6. The petitioner also submitted that he served the department for about 17 years and as an incidence of service, he was allotted a quarter in Haflong and after removing him from service, the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills vide order dated 14.07.2002, directed the petitioner to vacate the Government Quarter within 10 days. 6. As the said appeal of the petitioner remained unattended, the petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid actions of the State respondents approached this Court in a writ proceeding being WP(C) No. 4523/2002 and the Court while admitting the same, directed the authorities not to evict him from his quarter. On 29.03.2005, the Court vide judgment and order passed in said WP(C) No. 4523/2002 held that serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner and accordingly aforesaid removal order of the petitioner dated 10.06.2002 was set aside and the respondent authorities were directed to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of supply of the Inquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer, allowing the petitioner to make representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, making it open to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner that may be filed by him and to pass necessary order thereafter, directing the respondents to complete the said exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the said judgment i.e. 29.03.2005. 7. The respondents on 20.07.2005, filed a M.C. No. 2143/2005 in the said disposed of WP(C) No. 4523/2002 and sought for another 3 (three) months time for implementation of the Judgment & Order dated 29.03.2005 passed in said WP(C) No. 4523/2002. In the said Misc. Application, the applicants (respondents herein) also submitted that they are taking steps to reinstate the Opposite Party, the petitioner in his service as directed by the Hon'ble Court and are taking steps to provide that the inquiry from the stage of supply of inquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and allowing him to take representation against the findings of the enquiry officer and to complete the entire process, it requires three months from the date of filing of the said application. 8. However, after filing of the above noted Misc. 8. However, after filing of the above noted Misc. Application No. 2143/2005, without taking any leave from the Court and without any Court's order, the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong by his communication under Memo No. NCH/RB/2005/2151 dated 30.07.2005 issued the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner with the copy of the Inquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 stating that the appointed Enquiry Officer submitted his report with regard to the charges framed against him in the Disciplinary Proceeding No. 10/2001 that was drawn up against him and on careful consideration of the said report and on perusal of the records, considering the evidence and circumstances that appeared in the case, he agreed with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges have been proved and he being the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be removed from service and directed the petitioner to show cause, in writing, if any, within ten days from the date of receipt of the said communication against the action proposed to be taken. Said show-cause notice of the respondent No. 3, the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.07.2005 was served on the petitioner on 31.07.2005. 9. The petitioner on receipt of the same through his lawyer on 08.08.2005 informed the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong that the aforesaid show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 was issued after more than 4 (four) months from the date of passing the aforesaid judgment & order dated 29.03.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 4523/2002, beyond the time specified therein, which is without the leave of the Hon'ble Court, prior to the issuance of the same and requested the authority for his immediate reinstatement as directed by the Hon'ble Court on 29.03.2005. By the said letter, the respondent concerned was also informed that in case he desires to initiate the proceeding as contemplated by the said Show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2005, the leave of the Court is condition precedent and that the said letter on behalf of the petitioner dated 08.08.2005 had been issued without prejudice to his right to defend himself in the proposed Departmental Proceeding provided the same was done with due permission of the Hon'ble Court. 10. 10. Though directed by the said respondent No. 3, in his said Show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2005, the petitioner did not make any representation against the aforesaid findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 09.05.2002 as it was issued beyond the prescribed time, as specified by the Court on 29.03.2005 in WP(C) No. 4523/2002. However, the said respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong vide Order under memo No. NCH/RB/2005/2537-46 dated 23.09.2005 came to a conclusion that the petitioner is wilfully delaying the completion of the process and after going through the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, agreed with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 09.05.2002 and that the petitioner's such gross negligence and undisciplined conduct as guard is detrimental for the security of the State and the force discipline. The respondent No. 3, by the said Order dated 23.09.2005 concluded that it is not desirable to allow such personnel to continue in the service of disciplined police force and considering the matter, removed the petitioner form service with immediate effect holding that he shall not be entitled to pensionary benefits and the amount payable to him be calculated, drawn and disbursed and accordingly disposed of the disciplinary proceeding. 11. The petitioner further stated that the said M.C. No. 2143/2005 in WP(C) No. 4523/2002 preferred by the respondent authority came up for consideration before the Court on 25.11.2005, and the Court found that the said Misc. Application was filed on 20.07.2005 praying for extension of 3 (three) months time for implementation of the Judgment & order dated 29.03.2005 passed by the Court in WP(C) No. 4523/2002 already expired on 19.10.2015 and accordingly, by order dated 25.11.2005 disposed of the said Misc. Application No. 2143/2005 holding it to be infructuous. The petitioner further submitted that during hearing and/or pendency of the said Misc Case, its applicants, the respondents herein, did not inform the Court about the present impugned order dated 23.09.2005 that was already passed during the pendency of the said Misc Case. 12. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner for setting aside the above noted Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2001, the Enquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 and the order dated 23.09.2005. 13. 12. Hence this writ petition by the petitioner for setting aside the above noted Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2001, the Enquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 and the order dated 23.09.2005. 13. The contention of the petitioner is that the action of the state respondents are ex-facie illegal and without any jurisdiction and the initiation of the proceeding from the stage of issuing said second show cause notice was much beyond the time period of 3 (three) months stipulated by the Court vide Judgment and order dated 29.03.05, and the respondent authorities without taking any leave from the Court illegally issued the second Show cause Notice dated 30.07.2005 and the order dated 23.09.2005 removing the petitioner from service. 14. The State respondents did not file any affidavit in the matter, however, produced the original record of the disciplinary proceeding involved in this case. 15. From the perusal of the records submitted by the State respondents it is seen that the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong under Memo No. RB/88/2KI/829 dated 20.12.2001 issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 7 of the Police Act (Act V of 1861) read with Rule 66 of Assam Police Manual Part-in and Article 311 of Constitution of India to ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa, the petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed therein should not be inflicted upon him for his gross negligence and remiss in duty as he was found absent from magazine guard duty on 19.10.2001 while he was detailed for the same and further on 22.11.2001 in the noon roll call, he was detailed for magazine guard duty on 23.10.2001, but he did not attend the day (23.10.2001) for performing the said duty. The said show cause notice reads as follows: Office of the Superintendent of Police:::::::: North Cachar Hills Haflong Memo No. RB/88/2KI/829 dated Haflong, the 20th Dec, 2001 To ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa N.C. Hills D.E.F. Haflong. Sub:- Show Cause Notice. You are hereby asked to show cause U/S 7 of Police Act (Act-V-1861) read with Rule 66 of Assam Police Manual Part-III and Article-311 of Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed therein should not inflicted upon you on the following charges based on the statement of allegation enclosed herewith. CHARGE On 19.10.2001, while you were detailed for magazine guard duty under control of Hav. Dayal Ch. CHARGE On 19.10.2001, while you were detailed for magazine guard duty under control of Hav. Dayal Ch. Das but you were found absent from magazine guard duty. Again, on 22.11.2001, in the noon roll call you were detailed for magazine guard duty on 23.11.2001. But you did not attend on the duty on 23.11.2001. So, you are charged with gross negligence and remissness in duty which renders you unfit to remain in disciplines Police Force. You are therefore asked to submit your written explanation in defence within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this notice provided you do not want to inspect the relevant documents. In case, you intend to inspect any document you should write within 7 days to the undersigned from the date of receipt of this notice and should submit explanation in written within 10 days. Your written statement relating whether you desire to be heard in person should be submitted to the undersigned within the period specified above. Superintendent of Police. N.C. Hills, Haflong Statement of Allegation ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa. N.C. Hills D.E.F. Haflong. On 19.10.2001 ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa was detailed for magazine guard duty under control of Hav. Dayal Ch. Das, but, he was found absent from magazine guard duty. Again, on 22.11.2001, in the noon roll call he was detailed for magazine guard duty on 23.11.2001, but he did not attend on the day for performing duty. For his such gross remissness and negligence in duty which renders him unfit in disciplines Police Force. Superintendent of Police. N.C. Hills. Haflong 16. However, it is seen that along with the said Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2001, the said Superintendent of Police being the Disciplinary Authority only enclosed the 'statement of allegation' against the petitioner, but it did not contain (i) the list of documents and (ii) the list of witnesses; on the basis of which the charges against the charge officer, i.e. the petitioner herein were proposed to be proved and from whom evidence of the proceeding were to adduced. 17. It is seen from the records that the said show cause notice dated 20.12.2001 was received by the petitioner on 24.12.2001 and he submitted his reply before the concerned Superintendent of Police on 02.01.2002. 17. It is seen from the records that the said show cause notice dated 20.12.2001 was received by the petitioner on 24.12.2001 and he submitted his reply before the concerned Superintendent of Police on 02.01.2002. Finding his reply as not satisfactory, the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong, vide order dated 04.02.2002 drawn up the departmental proceeding being D.P. No. 10/2001 against the petitioner, decided to proceed with the same and accordingly appointed one Shri. S.K. Dey, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), N.C. Hills as the Enquiry Officer to inquire in to the matter and submit his findings within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The copy of the said order dated 04.02.2002 was only forwarded to said Shri. S.K Dey, the Enquiry officer. 18. From the record of the State respondents it is seen that there is a note of one H/Lnk Hori Pr. Choudhury, N.C. Hills DEF, Haflong which discloses that he on last 03.03.2002, in the morning around 7:30, on instruction of the Arms Branch Inspector, went to C/N 181 Jayanta Hasamsa of Lower Haflong New Reserve to inform him about the D.P. No. 10/2001 under Memo No. RB/88//2K2/160-A dated 3rd March/2002; but said C/N 181 Jayanta Hasamsa refused to sign the said D/P order and stated that since he did not receive the D/P order he would not go and the said H/Lnk. Hori Pr. Choudhury returned back. But the said note did not contain any date nor contained any signature of the Enquiry officer with date or that of the concerned Arms Branch Inspector with date. 19. The Enquiry Officer vide his letter under Memo No. No. RB/88//2K2/160-A dated 03.03.2002 informed the Arms Branch Inspector, Haflong to produce the delinquent ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa of the said D.E.F. before him in his office chamber on 09.03.2002 at 11 A.M. to record his statement in connection with the said D.P. No. 10/2001. It is seen that one ABC/226 of N.C. Hills, D.E.F. handed over the copy of the said Memo to the delinquent ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa in his residence on 03.03.2002 and obtain receipt from him in the Issue Register. The said note was signed by said ABC/226 with date as 03.03.2002. 20. It is seen that one ABC/226 of N.C. Hills, D.E.F. handed over the copy of the said Memo to the delinquent ABC/181 Jayanta Hasamsa in his residence on 03.03.2002 and obtain receipt from him in the Issue Register. The said note was signed by said ABC/226 with date as 03.03.2002. 20. It is seen in the said record of the D/P No. 10/2001 that no such daily order sheet is available with the record to show the various orders passed by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority on day to day basis or from time to time, maintaining the proceeding of the records of said officers. In absence of such an order sheet it is difficult to know whether at the various stages the inquiry officer has violated the procedure without prejudicing any of the rights of the delinquent officer. Daily order sheet contains a running record of all important events occurring during the course of the inquiry as well as the record of the business transacted on each day of hearing and the order passed by the Enquiry Officer on oral or written representation of both the parties. There is no record that in order to avoid any complication at a later stage, the inquiry officer invariably asked the delinquent officer whether he wish to cross examine each of the witnesses produced on behalf of the disciplinary authority and that if on such query the delinquent officer declined to cross examine any or all such witnesses and these which facts are required to be recorded on each deposition and in the daily order sheet to avoid any complications later as the right of cross examination is a very valuable right to the delinquent officer. 21. From the perusal of the record it is also seen that the Enquiry Officer informed the Disciplinary Authority, the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong that though no formal charge have been brought out against the delinquent/the petitioner herein, for his absence in magazine guard duty on 06.03.2002, but on the report of Havilder T. Sarkar, the said matter was also inquired into and its finding is also reflected in his enquiry report. The Enquiry Officer, however, in his Inquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 incorporated an additional charge against the petitioner that on 05.03.2002, the delinquent/petitioner was detailed for magazine guard duty on 06.03.2002 and he was found absent on roll call on 05.03.2002 and accordingly ABC/164 Biratham Bathari informed him (the delinquent/petitioner) in his quarter about his assigned duty, but the delinquent was found absent in his duty on 06.03.2002, holding that the same is found well established against the delinquent petitioner But the record produced by the State respondents do not reveal anything with regard to the furnishing of copy the documents to the delinquent officer/petitioner herein by which the said ABC/164 Biratham Bathari on 05.03.2002 read over the duty allotment order to the delinquent informing him that on 06.03.2002 he had been allotted with magazine guard duty. Again the record does not show that the absent report submitted by said Havilder T. Sarkar dated 06.03.2002 informing the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, Haflong with regard to the absence of the delinquent/petitioner in magazine guard duty on the said date. No records have been placed before the Court to show that aforesaid documents were provided to the delinquent/petitioner to defend himself from this allegation of his absence in duty, as this charge was not included in the original charge sheet dated 20.12.2001. But the Enquiry Officer without giving such opportunity of reasonable hearing to that extent came to the final conclusion about the delinquent's absence in duty on 06.03.2002 in his Inquiry Report dated 09.04.2002 which finding was again accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as it is revealed from his order dated 23.09.2005. 22. The Enquiry Officer in his said Inquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 included another charge that on 03.03.2002 that H/LNK 71 Hori Prasad Choudhury went to the quarter of the delinquent to intimate him to remain present at Haflong Police Station Control Room in connection with the Departmental Proceeding, which the delinquent/petitioner refused to attend on the plea of not receiving any official order, which charge according to the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry found well established against the petitioner. But, as mentioned above said H/LNK 71 Hori Prasad Choudhury in his note stated that he went to inform the delinquent/petitioner about the communication under the Memo No. RB/88/2K2/160-A dated 03.03.2002 with regard to the date of his said D/P No. 10/2001 only; which the said delinquent C/N181 Jayanta Hasamsa received the same officially on 03.03.2002 as per the report of ABC 226 and the said communication under Memo No. RB/88/2K2/160-A dated 03.03.2002 revels that by the same the Enquiry Officer directed the delinquent/petitioner to attend the said D/P 10/2001 only on 09.03.2001, which the delinquent attended as per the said record of the department concerned and further the record placed by the respondent do not reveal anything that the said delinquent was informed about the said charge and that copy of the said note of H/LNK. 71 Hori Prasad was provided to the delinquent/petitioner giving him reasonable opportunity to defend himself from such additional allegation not included in the original charge sheet dated 20.12.2001. But the Enquiry Officer without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing with regard to the same came to the final conclusion about the delinquent's refusal to attend the Disciplinary Proceeding due to non receipt of the official order/communication which finding was also accepted by the Disciplinary Authority which is evident from his order dated 23.09.2005. 23. Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part III provides for 'proceeding to be drawn up in cases of major punishment' and Rule 66(II)(2) prescribes Major Penalties. Rule 66(III) of Assam Police Manual Part III clearly lays down that: "no order of major punishment shall be passed on a member of the service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstances which it is proposed to take in to consideration in passing orders on the case." In the present case, it is seen from the Inquiry report dated 09.05.2002 that with regard to other two additional charges, the Enquiry Officer in his inquiry found well established against the petitioner and with regard to the charge of petitioner's absence from magazine guard duty on 06.03.2002, the Enquiry Officer found proved beyond reasonable doubt. But record produced by the respondents do not show anywhere that the delinquent/petitioner was informed in writing and that it was communicated to him, as required under the said Rule enabling the delinquent/petitioner to put forward his defence against said two allegations against him. As such, the said Inquiry against the petitioner not being in conformity with the Rule is illegal. The Disciplinary Authority has also committed wrong in accepting the said Inquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 which is not in accordance with law. 24. With regard to the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, involved in the present case, this Court by its earlier Judgment & order dated 29.03.2005 passed in the earlier proceeding of WP(C) No. 4523/2002 already set aside & quashed the order dated 10.02.2002 by which the Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service on the basis of above noted Enquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 and directed the respondents to comply with the directions passed therein within 3 (three) months from the date of said judgment. The Hon'ble Court while disposing of the said WP(C) No. 4523/2002, considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 directed the Respondents therein to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of supply of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 directed the Respondents therein to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of supply of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police N.C. Hills, Haflong did not comply with the directions and did not initiate the required process within the time specified by the Court in the said WP(C) No. 4523/2002 and it is much after expiry of the period three months, of its own, without obtaining any leave from the Court or any order of the Court issued the second Show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2005 and further issued the impugned order of removal of service from the petitioner on 23.09.2005 in complete violation of the earlier Court's order dated 29.03.2005 passed in said WP(C) No. 4523/2002. 25. The records placed by the State respondents did not reveal with regard to giving of any chance to the petitioner to rebut the new charges/allegations with regard to his (i) absence during the roll call on 05.03.2002, (ii) absence as magazine guard duty on 06.03.2002 and (iii) refusal to attend the disciplinary proceeding without official order being served. There is also no record during the inquiry of said disciplinary proceeding that the Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner that he can cross-examine the witnesses' produced on behalf of the disciplinary authority and that he can also engage a defence assistant to help him out for a judicious adjudication of the inquiry of the matter. 26. From the documents available in the case record produced by the State respondents it is seen that the documents on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer inquired into the two additional charges stated above were never given to the petitioner giving him a reasonable opportunity to put up his defence. Such actions of the State respondents have definitely caused prejudice to the delinquent/petitioner. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions have settled the law that: "the departmental inquiry is not an empty formality; it is a serious proceeding intended to give the delinquent Officer concerned to meet the charge and to prove his innocence and no materials should be relied on against the delinquent Officer without giving him a reasonable opportunity of explaining them so that no prejudice is caused to the defence of the delinquent Officer." 27. The documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in establishing the said two additional charges against the petitioner were not given to him thereby which the respondents committed illegality denying the reasonable opportunity to the delinquent/petitioner to defend himself during the enquiry. Therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer dated 09.05.2002 is not in conformity with law and as such the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, (now renamed as Dima Hasao District), Haflong ought not to have pass the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service without furnishing the copies of the documents to the delinquent/petitioner herein, that were relied on by the Enquiry Officer. 28. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned Inquiry Report dated 09.05.2002 passed by the Enquiry Officer in the Disciplinary Proceeding No. 10/2001 drawn up against the petitioner as well as the impugned order under Memo No.NCH/RB/2005/2537-46 dated 23.09.2005 of the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills, (presently known as Dima Hasao District), Haflong, removing the petitioner from service as ABC/181 at N.C. Hills, D.E.F., Haflong along with all its consequential orders are hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential service benefits. However, the concerned Disciplinary Authority is at liberty to initiate the disciplinary proceeding afresh against the petitioner from the stage of initiation of the Inquiry by the Enquiry Officer in accordance with law and as per the Rules in force, if so advised. 29. Registry shall send down the records of aforesaid Disciplinary Proceeding No. 10/2001 to the Superintendent of Police N.C. Hills (Dima Hasao District), Haflong that was sought for by the Court by its earlier order dated 09.06.2006 passed in the present petition. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.