JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is an IPS officer working under the Government of Assam. The petitioner admittedly purchased a plot of land bearing Dag No. 185 of K.P. Patta No. 248 Village Noonmati Gaon in the district of Kamrup under a registered sale deed dated 22.12.2011 from one Mayur Talukdar for a sum of Rs. 72 Lakhs 75 thousand. The purchase was a joint purchase in his name and in the name of his brother-in-law Anvesh Kumar Goyal. The facts alleged in the writ petition disclose that there was matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife and she had submitted a complaint to the Government on 02.02.2003, which is as follows: "I am the legally wedded wife of Shri Anurag Agarwal I.P.S., Presently as S.P. Karimganj. Our marriage was solemnized at MORADABAD (U.P.) on 31.01.01 and I have a son aged 14th months from that marriage. I have borne abuses, mental and physical torture and neglect of myself and my son for a long time, but now things have come to such a point that I have no option but to report the matter to higher authorities for seeking justice for myself and my son. The tale of woes is very long, but it is being mentioned in brief. Unfortunately from the very beginning my husband and his family members, including his sisters and brothers in law, have been extorting money running into tens of lacs on one pretext or other and now on inability of my father to meet further dowry demand he has deserted me and warned my fattier to face the consequences. I tried to talk to him several times on telephone but he refused to come on line. My all letters to him remained un-answered. Of late it is learnt that he wants to get rid of me and re-marry some one whose people can fulfil his demands. He has insulted me several times and physically assaulted me on the ground that my father has not fulfilled his demands. He and his parents, particularly his mother insisted that I write on paper that in the event of my death he and his family members would not be held responsible. He and his mother wanted to commit my murder and the note was got prepared to lay a cover on it. He and his parents, particularly his mother insisted that I write on paper that in the event of my death he and his family members would not be held responsible. He and his mother wanted to commit my murder and the note was got prepared to lay a cover on it. A part from the above, otherwise also he does not behave like a scrupulous person and a member of higher civil services; for example in order to get travel concession from Sahara Airlines he impersonates as captain A. Agarwal of sikh regiment and thus makes false declaration in forms. He has done it several times for journey between Dibrugarh and Delhi. I may point out that one such journey was undertaken between 20th and 22nd April 2001 between Dibrugarh and Delhi and back. A proper inquiry would confirm this fact. He has been transferring a lot of money to his brother-in-law from his place of posting by sending bank draft from Sadia (Tinsukia) to Gangoh, Saharanpur, U.P. in the names of M/s. Goyal paints and laxmi cement. I understand that even his driving license taken at Gangoh, Saharanpur U.P. is not in his own name, but in the name of Anurag Goyal. He appears to be in the habit of impersonating by taking different names to suit his purpose. Above all, his behaviour towards me and his son has been very cruel. In my case it extended several times to physical violence. I, as a Hindu wife, had to tolerate all this, lest we should earn disrepute. But it was extreme when he turned me out of house on 22.04.02's night at Morigaon asking me to go away. I was compelled to give a phone call to my father at 11.00 at night from a P.C.O. Finding no other alternative at that strange place I returned and on my telling my husband that my father would be coming to take me, he allowed me to stay for the night. When my father came to take me on 23.04.02 my husband insulted him shouting that I would not be permitted to stay with him unless my father paid further money. Far from calling me back or agreeing to my return he has never phoned me to enquire about my welfare or that of his son. He has refused to attend my calls. Far from calling me back or agreeing to my return he has never phoned me to enquire about my welfare or that of his son. He has refused to attend my calls. When on the occasion of his sister's marriage in November 2002 my father contacted him at Muzuffar Nagar, he again insisted on fulfilment of his dowry demands. Not only that, he severely threatened my father saying that he was a police officer and it would not be difficult for him to get him involved in false cases or to finish him in an encounter. We had no option but to silently come back to Moradabad. Thus I and son are forced to stay with my parents for last months. In addition to obtaining false travel concessions in personating as captain A. Agarwal of Sikh Regiment, his ill treatment had made my life miserable. His deeds are as follows: a. Transferring ill gotten money by bank drafts from Sadia to Gangoh, Distt. Saharanpur. b. By having a false driving licence in the name of Anurag Goyal. c. By not heeding to the advise for keeping me and our child with him. d. By pressing for dowry demand time and again and. e. By threatening my father to get him involved in false cases and elimination in an encounter. f. He has illegally retained my ornaments etc. which is my striatum and is returnable tome. I may respectfully state that I belong to a family of repute and high education. I myself hold doctorate degree in psychology and some of my relatives are very senior Govt. Officers. I want the matter to be settled through the department so that I may be able to lead a normal life. I may mention that my own conduct can be verified from my husband's superiors of all his earlier postings. I request your honour to take appropriate action in the matter by getting the events inquired into." 2. The allegations in the complaint were enquired into by the Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police (CID) and Addl. Director General of Police (CID). Finally, the Commissioner and Secretary, Home (A) Department passed the following order on 26.09.2010, which is as follows: "Notes from page 117N may kindly be seen. The report from ADGP (CID) can be seen at S 1.455c-485c. Director General of Police (CID). Finally, the Commissioner and Secretary, Home (A) Department passed the following order on 26.09.2010, which is as follows: "Notes from page 117N may kindly be seen. The report from ADGP (CID) can be seen at S 1.455c-485c. The issue relating to Shri Anurag Agarwal, IPS, is pending since 2003 and we are yet to initiate either a departmental proceeding against him or register a regular vigilance case against him. ADGP (CID) has examined the matter thoroughly and it appears that there is no corroborating evidence or document, necessitating initiation of disciplinary action against him. We may therefore give Shri Agarwal IPS the benefit of doubt and drop the matter." 3. Consequent to the said order, with the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Minister, Assam, the Home (A) and Political Department, issued a communication to the Director General of Police, dated 22.02.2011, which is as follows: "I am directed to invite a reference to your letter on the subject cited above in connection with the allegations leveled against Shri Anurag Agarwal, IPS, by Smti Shefali Agarwal & others. The Government have examined the matter and by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material on records, it has been decided to close the matter." 4. The Additional Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption seems to have made a request to the Government for conducting preliminary enquiry against the petitioner vide letter No. DGVA/CA 1598, dated 03.12.2005. Pursuant to the said request, the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Assam, in the communication, dated 09.01.2008, informs the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance) that the Government has approved to initiate a preliminary enquiry to be conducted by him against the petitioner and to furnish report to the Government within the stipulated period. The copy of the said communication is extracted hereunder for convenient reference: "In inviting a reference to your letter indicated above, I am directed to inform you that the Govt. has approved to initiate a preliminary enquiry to be conducted by you against Shri Anurag Agarwal, IPS and furnish the report to the Govt. within the stipulated period." 5. Pursuant to the above communication, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell, and submitted its final report dated 25.01.2013. has approved to initiate a preliminary enquiry to be conducted by you against Shri Anurag Agarwal, IPS and furnish the report to the Govt. within the stipulated period." 5. Pursuant to the above communication, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell, and submitted its final report dated 25.01.2013. The findings of the preliminary enquiry are as follows: "Findings: During discreet enquiry, acting on a secret information, I came to know that Shri Anurag Agarwal, IPS, has purchased a big plot of land with building at Ganesh Mandir Path, Noonmati, at the cost of few crores of rupees. On receipt of this information as to establish the purchase of land with building etc, I have visited the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati, Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati and other places having relevance in connection with this enquiry. In course of enquiry, while consulting with the records, in record branch of the relevant office, it was found and ascertained that Shri Anurag Agarwal, S/o. Sadhuram Agarwal of Roorke house No. 563/1 PS-Gang Nagar in the district of Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh, made and executed a deed of agreement for sale of a plot of land measuring 64.95 ARE 4 Bigha, 4 katha and 5 lecha covered by Dag No. 46/old, 185 (New) of KP Patta No. 95 (old)/248 (New) situated at Noonmati under Mouza Ulubari together with a RCC building standing thereon over the said plot of land in the district of Kamrup (M) description of which is bounded by North land of Mr. Neog South Land of Dag No. 46, East-Ganesh Mandir road and land of Mala Barkakoti and in west-land of Dag No. 46 with the seller of this above mentioned plot of land and building owner namey Mayur Talukdar and the said deed of agreement for sale of the above mentioned plot of land and building was made and executed in the Sr. Sub-Registrar's office on 18th Dec, 2011. During discreet enquiry, also collected a copy of sale permission issued by Shri Nareswar Upadhyay, ACS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) Guwahati vide letter No. KRM(M)5/2010/9300 dated Guwahati 04/11/2011 where it was mentioned and fixed value of sale at Rs. 15.00 lacs per bigha. Thus, on 22.12.2011 the deed of sale was executed in the office of Sr. Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (M) Guwahati, Shri Manjit Kr. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) Guwahati vide letter No. KRM(M)5/2010/9300 dated Guwahati 04/11/2011 where it was mentioned and fixed value of sale at Rs. 15.00 lacs per bigha. Thus, on 22.12.2011 the deed of sale was executed in the office of Sr. Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (M) Guwahati, Shri Manjit Kr. Das was the Sub-Registrar under whose signature the deed of registration was executed between the seller and purchasers. On scrutiny of the said deed of sale it was found that the Govt. approved zonal value of land as regards amount payable as registration fees and stamp duty for registration of documents were not taken into the account and blatantly flouted. As per deed of sale, total land measuring 4 bighas 4 kathas and 5 lechas whose value of sale was taken at Rs. 46.00 lacs and paid the registration fees and stamp duty for registration of documents. Just to minimize the fees as well as to hush up the assets in ulterior motive. Causing loss to the Govt. revenue/fees etc and there is malafide reasons behind it. The Govt. of Assam vide letter No. REGN61/2005/52 dated Dispur the 30th Nov/2006, the Additional Chief Secretary, Assam Revenue Department has given guidelines for fixation of Zonal valuation of lands in the State of Assam and for the purpose (1) the Inspector General of Registration, Assam (2) All Deputy Commissioners (except hills and BTAD districts) (3) All SDO (Civil) were duly informed. In response to the above guidelines, the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M) Guwahati issued notification vide order No. KRS 423/2011 dated 20.08.2011 and fixed the Zonal valuation which came into effect from 20th August, 2011. As per the rate the fixation of zonal valuation of land from Anuradha to Noonmati was fixed @ Rs. 75,00,000/- per bigha. As per the Govt. notification, zonal valuation fixed at Rs. 75,00,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the total value of land measuring 4 bigha 4 katha and 5 lecha will be Rs. 3,63,75,000/- which is the actual Govt. zonal fixed value. But here in this case, the total deed money was shown at Rs. 72,75,000/-. Now if we deduct the deed value of Rs. 72,75,000/- from the actual Govt. zonal fixed value of Rs. 3,63,75,000/- then the amount which was not shown in the deed will stand at Rs. 2,91,00000/-. As per Govt. rule Rs. 85/- per 1000 fixed as registration fees. 72,75,000/-. Now if we deduct the deed value of Rs. 72,75,000/- from the actual Govt. zonal fixed value of Rs. 3,63,75,000/- then the amount which was not shown in the deed will stand at Rs. 2,91,00000/-. As per Govt. rule Rs. 85/- per 1000 fixed as registration fees. Hence, the total value of registration fees of total land value of Rs. 3,63,75,000 - 72,75,000 = 2,91,00000 - 1000 x 85 = 24,73,500/-. On the other hand, as per Govt. rule the fixed stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 8%. Hence, the total value of stamp duty of total land value of Rs. 3,63,75,000-72,75,000=2,91,00000 ö 100x8 = 23,28,000. Therefore, Rs. 24,73,500 + 23,28,000 = 48,01,500/- which is loss to the Govt. and gain to the purchaser/purchasers. The officers of different branches working under the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, who were responsible for causing loss to the Govt. amounting to Rs. 48,01,500/- by minimizing the Govt. fixed zonal valuation of land with ulterior motive will come to the light during open enquiry/case as to enable us to unearth the real facts. During discreet enquiry, it was revealed that Shri Anvesh Kumar Goyal, S/o. Jaduram Goyal resident of Chatta Street, PS Gangoh in the district of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, whose name was not found in the deed of agreement made and executed on 18.11.2011 by Shri Anurag Agarwal and Shri Mayur Talukdar i.e., both the purchasers and seller. But suddenly the name of Shri Anvesh Kr Goyal was included in the deed of sale dated 22.12.2011. The relation of Shri Anvesh Goyal with Shri Anurag Agarwal and the financial position of Shri Anvesh Goyal are yet to be verified which is not possible in the present stage of enquiry except a Regular enquiry/Case. It is strongly suspected that the name of Shri Goyal was shown only to minimize the financial implication of Shri Agarwal by dividing the value of already undervalued land deed. While consulting with the sale permission it was found vide memo No. KRM(M)5/2010/9300 dated 4.11.11 that in Sl No. 1 of condition it was mentioned that the amount payable as registration fees and stamp duty for registration of documents with reference to the NOC shall be determined by the amount of actual consideration agreed upon by the seller and the purchasers or Govt. approved zonal value of land applicable to land of the connected village whichever is higher. approved zonal value of land applicable to land of the connected village whichever is higher. Hence, in this case, it was considered the actual Govt. fixed approved rate which is higher than the deed price and the Govt. approved rate in a total amount of Rs. 3,63,75000/- so the total cost of land excluding the standing RCC building whose value at the time of purchase was not mentioned. It is a fact that the movable assets and deposits and other expenditure could not be ascertained in the present stage of enquiry. As regards assets acquired by Shri Anurag Agarwal during the tenure as SDPO Sadiya it was found related to transferring money by draft etc which requires an open enquiry. The income received by Shri Anurag Agarwal from 1998 to Nov, 2012 was taken from a IPS cadre of 1998 whose pay and allowances are equivalent to him. Hence, the total income from pay and allowances received by him during the period from 1998 to Nov, 2012, will be approx net salary = Rs. 47,22,879/-. If we deduct 33% (family maintenance) from his net salary income of Rs. 47,22,879/-, then the income will remain at Rs. 31,64,329/-. From the above, it appears that the income of Shri Agarwal is Rs. 31,64,329 whereas his expenditure (excluding movable assets, deposit and other expenditure) is Rs. 3,63,75000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs. 3,32,10,671/- is found disproportionate beyond his known source of income, which he earned during the tenure of his service from 1998 to Nov, 2012. Under the facts and circumstances stated above, I, therefore, suggest to accord necessary approval of the Govt. of Assam for an open enquiry i.e., regular enquiry/case as to enable us to dig out the real facts as regards involvement of the officers who were found causing wrongful loss of Govt. revenue/fees etc by minimizing the Govt. approved fixation rate etc of the land in question. Further in acquiring huge assets by Shri Agarwal, IPS, amounting to Rs. 3,32,10,671/- which is disproportionate to his known source of income. This is glaring example of minimizing the Govt. approved rate in fixing the value of land so many such type of cases will come into light if a thorough and open enquiry is made where crores of Govt. revenue/fees etc are involved. Submitted to the Addl. 3,32,10,671/- which is disproportionate to his known source of income. This is glaring example of minimizing the Govt. approved rate in fixing the value of land so many such type of cases will come into light if a thorough and open enquiry is made where crores of Govt. revenue/fees etc are involved. Submitted to the Addl. Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, Srimantapur, Guwahati, for favour of kind perusal and taking necessary action." 6. The gist of the preliminary enquiry discloses that: "(1) the agreement for sale entered with the purchaser is only in the name of the petitioner whereas the sale deed was jointly in the name of the petitioner and his brother-in-law, Anvesh Kumar Goyal. (2) The value of the property purchased as per the registered sale deed is Rs. 72 lakhs 75 thousand. The minimum value fixed by the Government for registration is Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha whereas the petitioner unduly influenced the Revenue officers and got the value fixed at Rs. 15 Lakhs per bigha and, thus, purchased the property for undervaluation. (3) The actual market value of the property will be Rs. 3 crores and odd whereas the petitioner's annual income for the period was Rs. 47 lakhs and odd only. The under valuation of the property is about Rs. 2 crores 91 lakhs. The said amount is said to be disproportionate to the known source of income of the petitioner. (4) The petitioner has paid lesser stamp duty and still he should have paid Rupees forty eight lakhs one thousand and five hundred. The said amount was not paid and thus the petitioner has caused dishonest loss to the Government revenue." 7. In view of the said material, in the preliminary report, it was concluded that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and permission was sought for a full length regular enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, permission was granted for a full length regular enquiry. 8. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging initiation of the preliminary enquiry. In the course of the writ petition, preliminary enquiry was conducted and also a full-fledged regular enquiry was ordered. Therefore, the petitioner amended the writ petition seeking relief of quashing of the [preliminary report and also quashing of approval for the full-fledged regular enquiry. 9. 8. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging initiation of the preliminary enquiry. In the course of the writ petition, preliminary enquiry was conducted and also a full-fledged regular enquiry was ordered. Therefore, the petitioner amended the writ petition seeking relief of quashing of the [preliminary report and also quashing of approval for the full-fledged regular enquiry. 9. The petitioner has produced a notification dated 20.08.2011 fixing registration value of the properties in the Metropolitan district of Kamrup. As per the said notification, the rate fixed for different areas for different location in the tabular column of the value of the properties are as follows: Name: Guwahati Circle Location code (Numeric, please select from Annexure-I) Sl. 9. The petitioner has produced a notification dated 20.08.2011 fixing registration value of the properties in the Metropolitan district of Kamrup. As per the said notification, the rate fixed for different areas for different location in the tabular column of the value of the properties are as follows: Name: Guwahati Circle Location code (Numeric, please select from Annexure-I) Sl. No. Distr Sub Circle Mouza Lot Village Location Land code Description of location (as per OVM Data) Amount per (in INR) 1 24 01 03 02 04 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-I 0115 From GS  road Paltan bazaar to Ulubari (200 metre) 2,50,00,000.00 2 24 01 03 02 04 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-I 0107 From AK Azad Road to Serabbhati 2,00,00,000.00 3 24 01 03 02 04 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-I 0119 Rihabari 1,00,00,000.00 4 24 01 03 02 04 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-I 0120 Suhagpur 75,00,000.00 5 24 01 03 02 04 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-I 0121 Manipuri basti 75,00,000.00 6 24 01 03 02 09 20001 Ulubari Village 0115 Bhangagarh to medical college 2,00,00,000.00 7 24 01 03 02 09 20001 Ulubari Village 0119 Srimantapur 1,00,00,000.00 8 24 01 03 02 09 20001 Ulubari Village 0120 Rupnagar 90,00,000.00 9 24 01 03 02 09 20001 Ulubari Village 0121 Birubari 75,00,000.00 10 24 01 03 02 09 20001 Ulubari Village 0133 Junakpur 50,00,000.00 11 24 01 03 02 04 20002 Sahar Ulubari Part-III 0115 Bishnupur Main Road 1,00,00,000.00 12 24 01 03 02 04 20002 Sahar Ulubari Part-III 0119 Arya College 1,00,00,000.00 13 24 01 03 02 04 20002 Sahar Ulubari Part-III 0120 Arya Nagar 90,00,000.00 14 24 01 03 02 04 20002 Sahar Ulubari Part-III 0121 Natun Basti 75,00,000.00 15 24 01 03 02 04 20002 Sahar Ulubari Part-III 0133 Bishnupur 50,00,000.00 16 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0115 Chandmari Silpukhuri from Gandhibasti IB Road within 200 mtrs 1,50,00,000.00 17 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0119 From Gandhibasti IB Road outhside 200 mtrs 1,00,00,000.00 18 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0120 From Gandhibasti IB Road outhside 200 mtrs 1,00,00,000.00 19 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0119 Within 200 mtr from Rajgarh Road Rajgarh 1,25,00,000.00 20 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0120 Within 200 mtr from Rajgarh Road Rajgarh 1,25,00,000.00 21 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0119 Sarania under Rajgarh Road, East Sarania, South Sarania 1,00,00,000.00 22 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0120 Sarania under Rajgarh Road, East Sarania, South Sarania 1,00,00,000.00 23 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0119 Nijarapar out of 200 Mtrs from JB Road 1,00,00,000.00 24 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0120 Sarania under Rajgarh Road, East Sarania, South Sarania 1,00,00,000.00 25 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0119 Kamachal  from 200 mtrs out of JB Road Nabagraha 1,00,00,000.00 26 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-II 0120 Sarania under Rajgarh Road, East Sarania, South Sarania 1,00,00,000.00 27 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-I 0115 Paltanbazar to Ulubari GS Road 2,50,00,000.00 28 24 01 03 02 07 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-I 0119 Paltanbazar to Ulubari GS Road 1,00,00,000.00 29 24 01 03 02 07 20002 Sahar Sarania Part-I 0115 Stadium Road 1,75,00,000.00 30 24 01 03 02 06 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-I 0119 Salapara 1,00,00,000.00 31 24 01 03 02 06 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-I 0115 Guwahati Club to Silpukhuri from GNB Road Hedayetpur 1,50,00,000.00 32 24 01 03 02 06 20001 Sahar Sarania Part-I 0119 Hedayetpur 1,00,00,000.00 33 24 01 03 02 05 20001 Sahar Kharghuli 0119 Uzan Bazar upto Kharghuli 1,00,00,000.00 34 24 01 03 02 05 20002 Sahar Ramchahil Part-I 0119 Chandmari to Krishna Nagar 75,00,000.00 35 24 01 03 02 05 20003 Sahar Ramchahil 0119 Jaypur, Krishna Nagar, Amya Nagar & Piyaliphukan Nagar 75,00,000.00 36 24 01 03 02 01 20005 Bamunimaidam 0115 From Chandmari to Anuradha JB Road 1,50,00,000.00 37 24 01 03 02 01 20005 Bamunimaidam 0119 From Chandmari to Anuradha JB Road 1,00,00,000.00 38 24 01 03 02 01 20002 Noonmati 0115 Anuradha to Noonmati within 200 mtrs 75,00,000.00 39 24 01 03 02 01 20002 Noonmati 0119 Anuradha to Noonmati within 200 mtrs 75,00,000.00 40 24 01 03 02 01 20005 Sunchali 0119 All area of Sunchali 35,00,000.00 41 24 01 03 02 01 20004 Clearance Garden 0119 All area of Clearance Garden 35,00,000.00 42 24 01 03 02 03 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-II 0115 Both side of Road from Ulubari Chariali to Bhangagarh within 200 mtrs 2,00,00,000.00 43 24 01 03 02 03 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-II 0115 Kahari Basti, Lachit Nagar, Rajgarh, barthakur mil 1,00,00,000.00 44 24 01 03 02 03 20001 Sahar Ulubari Part-II 0119 Kahari Basti, Lachit Nagar, Rajgarh, barthakur mil 1,00,00,000.00 45 24 01 03 02 01 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-IV 0115 Panbazar, Lakhtakia within 200 mtrs from MG Road 2,50,00,000.00 46 24 01 03 02 01 20002 Sahar Guwahati Part-V 0115 Paltanbazar, Ambari within 200 mtrs from GS Road & IB Road 2,50,00,000.00 47 24 01 03 02 02 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-VI 0115 Uzan Bazar, Guwahati Club, Silpukhuri & GNB Road under 200 mtrs 1,50,00,000.00 48 24 01 03 02 02 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-VI 0119 Nabagraha Bankowar Nagar 1,00,00,000.00 49 24 01 03 02 02 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-VI 0119 Satpukhuri 60,00,000.00 50 24 01 03 02 02 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-VII 0115 Uzan Bazar, Guwahati Club within 200 mtrs 1,50,00,000.00 51 24 01 03 02 03 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-VII 0119 Uzanbazar & Senikhuti out of 200 mtrs 1,00,00,000.00 52 24 01 03 02 03 20001 Sahar Guwahati Part-VII 0119 Senikhuti hill side out of 200 mtrs 60,00,000.00 53 24 01 03 01 02 20002 Sahar Guwahati Part-III 0115 Fancy bazaar, Panbazar, Lakhtokia, AT Road, Atgoan 2,50,00,000.00 54 24 01 03 01 02 20002 Sahar Guwahati Part-III 0115 Nepali Mandir, AK Azad Road, Rihabari, Bill Park, Serab bhati, Chatribari 2,00,00,000.00 10. Serial Nos. 38 and 39 bearing Land Code Nos. 0115 and 119 pertain to Noonmati area For Land Code 119, the value for the area from Anuradha to Noonmati within 200 meters, the rate is fixed at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha. 11. The petitioner, before executing the sale deed, got approval of the land valuation for the purpose of sale. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, by letter, dated 04.11.2011, fixed the value in terms of the notification, dated 20.08.2011, at Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha on the ground that the property, in question, is beyond 200 meters. As per the value fixed by the communication of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, dated 04.11.2011, the sale deed was registered on 22.12.2011. 12. The notification, dated 20.06.2013, declares that the value of the property in the entire Noonmati area irrespective of the distance from Anuradha to Noonmati, the value is uniformly fixed at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha. 13. The petitioner has also produced the statement of the seller recorded by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, dated 28.06.2013, which is as follows: "Statement of Sri Mayur Talukdar S/o. Lt. Narendra Nath Talukdar of Hatigaon Chariali Karbi Path, House No. 124 Guwahati - 21 recorded in connection with V&A.C. Regular Enquiry No. 6(5)2013 dtd. 17.05.2013. My name & address is as stated above. I born on 01.03.1965 at New Guwahati Rly Coloney. My father was Rly Employee about 10 years back. I am the only son of my father. In the year 1996 (approx) self married with Smti. Bobby Talukdar D/O Lt. Boruda Saharia of Tangla. At present, I have one son & one daughter. They are 1) Sri Arkushish Talukdar (15 years) student of class X of saddle Brook, Florida USA and 2) Miss Maitreyi Talukdar of class VII studying in said school of USA. I passed HSLC from Cotton College School Guwahati in 1979 and passed BSC from Pragjyotish College Guwahati in 1984 (approx). After passing BSC, self started construction business in Assam PWD obtaining class -I Contractor license from the same departments viz, PWD, CPWD, Irrigation, Agriculture etc. Thereafter in the year 2001 self became printers & publishers of Assamese daily paper 'KHABAR' and in 2010 retired from said ' KHABAR' and started a new News Paper 'NIYAMIYA BARTA' an Assamese daily. After passing BSC, self started construction business in Assam PWD obtaining class -I Contractor license from the same departments viz, PWD, CPWD, Irrigation, Agriculture etc. Thereafter in the year 2001 self became printers & publishers of Assamese daily paper 'KHABAR' and in 2010 retired from said ' KHABAR' and started a new News Paper 'NIYAMIYA BARTA' an Assamese daily. Regarding immovable property, I would like to declare that on 15-12-2008 self purchased a plot of land measuring 64.95 ARE from Smti Neena Mazumdar W/o. Sri Sudip Dey of Ganesh Mandir Road, new Guwahati Noonmati Dist- Kamrup Assam covered by Dag No. 46(old)/202 (over)K.P. Patta No. 95(old)/354(new) Moza - Ulubari. This refers Deed No. 14947/08 dtd. 16.12.2008. I have also other plot of land in other parts of Assam valued approximate 2 (two) Crores details could not be furnished for the time being. I pay Income Tax approximate 75 Lakh last year. Being self & PWD Contractor Occasionally requires huge amount of money in cash. By middle part of 2011, self fall in urgent need of huge amount of cash for obtaining a PWD contract amounting around Rs. 12.00 Crores and said amount was unfortunately not in my possession for the time being. Naturally as no other alternative left to me, self contemplated to sale the plot of above plot of land of Noonmati. Accordingly self expressed my desire to some of my known relatives & friend with request to search for purchasers of said plot of land at reasonable price. In this connection in the month of August/2011, one of my friend name Sri Monaj Kalita of Zoo Road Guwahati approached before me with Mr. Anurag Agarwal, IPS, S.P. Karbi-Anglong along with Mr. Anvesh Kumar Goyal with a proposal to purchase my aforesaid plot of land. Subsequently some other parties also approached me for purchasing my land and discussion on location/rate etc. held amongst them. It may be noted that most of the willing purchasers party who approaches before me were allowed to visit the site of plot of land but as my land for sale found in hilly region & in eco-friendly Zone notified by GMDA. held amongst them. It may be noted that most of the willing purchasers party who approaches before me were allowed to visit the site of plot of land but as my land for sale found in hilly region & in eco-friendly Zone notified by GMDA. They laid lowest interest and those shown interests, willing to pay very negligible amount which cannot be accepted by me at last after prolonged discussion and consideration, self came up with agreement with (1) Sri Anurag Agarwal IPS to sale my aforesaid plot of land total Rs. 46.00 Lakh. In this connection on 13.12.2011 self came up with an agreement with the purchasers Sri Anurag Agarwal that the prospective purchaser/2nd party has paid an amount of Rs. 25.00 Lakh only. Through RTGS to the prospective seller/1st party (SBI, new Guwahati Branch) as an advance amount and the balance amount of Rs. 21.00 Lakh (twenty one Lakh) would be made payment at the time of final deed of sale. Thereafter on 12.09.2011 self jointly with purchasers 1) Sri Anurag Agarwal S/o. Sri Sadhuram Agarwal, 36 yrs. Vill.- Roorkee House No. 563/RS. & Dist- Haridwar U.K. and 2) Sri Anvesh Kr. Goyal S/o. Jadav Ram Vill-Gangoh, House No. 48 P.S. & Dist. Saharanpur, UP and moved the DC Kamrup (Metro) through the CO. Guwahati Revenue Circle with a prayer petition requesting to accord land sale permission in respect of purchaser sale of my aforesaid plot of land of Noonmati covered by Dag or new Dag No. 248 patta No. 185(new) together with a R.C.C. building standing there on mentioning the value of said land at Rs. 2,00000/- (Rs. Two Lakh) per Katha. Total sale amount of measurement of land is 64.95 ARE. Accordingly ADC Kamrup (Metro) Ghty vide his letter No. KPM(M).5/2010/9300 dtd. 04/11/2011 was pleased to accord No Objection (NOC) in matters of transfer of my aforesaid land fixed at Rs. 20(twenty Lakh) per Bigha only with some condition thereof. On receipt of above NOC, purchaser party raised objection (verbally) expressing their inability to purchase my plot of land. It may be noted that agreement made @ Rs. 2.00 Lakh per Katha thereby having Rs. 10.00 Lakh per Bigha whereas NOC fixed at Rs. 20.00 Lakh per Bigha which means that NOC amount is double then agreement amount that have to be beard by purchaser party. It may be noted that agreement made @ Rs. 2.00 Lakh per Katha thereby having Rs. 10.00 Lakh per Bigha whereas NOC fixed at Rs. 20.00 Lakh per Bigha which means that NOC amount is double then agreement amount that have to be beard by purchaser party. So situation reached to such an extent that sale of my land could not be materialized whereas self facing acute financial hardship/need for the time being. So finding no other alternative, on 23.11.2011, self once more submitted one prayer petition with ADC (K) Metro, Ghty requesting for re-value and re-consideration of our problems and please to re-fix the sale value of my aforesaid plot of land @ Rs. 10 to 15 Lakhs per Bigha. Accordingly ADC Kamrup Metro Ghty vide his letter No. KPM(M).5/2010/9300 dtd. 04.11.2011 was pleased to re-fix the sale value of my land from 20 Lakh to 15 Lakh per Bigha only. Thereafter Chief Executive Officer of GMDA, Ghty-5 vide his letter No. GMDA.5369(O/D), No. GMDA/LSP/1101/2110/2011/30 dtd. 07.12.2011 was pleased to issue NOC for sale/transfer of my aforesaid land with some condition thereof. Further it may be noted that purchaser party of my plot of land paid fees to the GMDA amounting Rs. 271.00 as 1st installment and Rs. 72,500.00 as 2nd installment. Thus so all process or transaction of sale of my land took place as per Govt. order/NOC. In otherwise, my plot of land amounting/measuring 64.95 ARE were sold @ Rs. 72,75,000.00 as per Govt. approved NOC vide Deed No. 11168 dtd. 22-12 -2011. 1) Question:- Who has bared the expenses necessary for stamp duty/Registration fees & purchase of stamp paper. Answer : Purchaser party of my plot of land bared all the expenses mentioned above. 2) Question:- Are you aware of the fact that present value of your sold out plot of land per Bigha is Rs. 75,00000/- (per Bigha). Answer: No, I am aware of that. 3) Question:- Have you any nexus with the purchaser party in transaction of purchase & sale of your land ? Answer: No. I promise that, the statement as furnished above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief and in the event of furnishing any false information, I shall remain bound for any action as per law. This is my statement." 14. Answer: No. I promise that, the statement as furnished above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief and in the event of furnishing any false information, I shall remain bound for any action as per law. This is my statement." 14. The gist of the statement discloses that the petitioner has paid the sale value as per the registered deed and no excess payment is made off the record. The petitioner submits that in the sale consideration of Rs. 72 lakhs and odd, he had paid Rs. 37 lakhs and 75 thousand and the balance was paid by his brother-in-law, who is the joint purchaser. The petitioner has also produced the bank certificate issued by Sivalik Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gangoh, which is as follows: "This is to certify that the remittance of Rs. 25,00,000/- only was sent on request of Mr. Anvesh Goyal from the account No. 200100135000 (Mr. Anvesh Goyal, S/o. Sh. Jado Ram R/o. Moh Chatta, Gangoh) with our Gangoh Branch in favour of Mr. Mayur Talukdar having an account No. 10566987826 with State Bank of India dated 13.09.2011." 15. The contents of the said certificate disclose that at the request of Anvesh Kumar Goyal, a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was sent to the seller's account. All the transactions in respect of the sale is made through Bank which is mentioned in the sale deed. 16. In view of the said material, Dr. Saraf, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the adverse findings in the preliminary report are contrary to the documentary evidence. The contention of the respondent that the value of the land is Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha is incorrect. In fact, as per the statement showing month-wise data of registered sale deeds in respect of village Noonmati with effect from June, 2011, to December, 2011, issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar of Kamrup, which is as follows: Deed Sl. No. 1st party 2nd party Area Consideration amount NOC No. Date of NOC Date of registration 6759 S. Zaved Benzia Dhruba Deka 3.34 ARE 312000 5439 19.5.11 6.6.11 9722 Sima Das Manabendra Sarma 4.01 ARE 300000 5854 2.6.11 29.7.11 10401 Bikiran Bora Bhaskar Raj  Bora 900 SQ FT 1150000 4401 16.2.11 12.8.11 12453 Rupanjan Sarma Kishor Shyamnal Rajak 1161 SQFT 1400000 7646 9.8.11 22.9.11 14181 Dr. Pranab Baruah Ranjit Choudhury & others 2k 5 L 900000 7305 29.7.11 11.11.11 16281 Mayur Talukdar Anurag Agarwala & others 64.95 ARE 7275000 9300 4.11.11 22.12.11 1681/12 Manasjyoti Talukdar Barindra Hazarika 0B-4K-0.00L 1500000 0 20.9.12 20.9.12 174/13 Sukumar Sarman Mun Narzari 0B-1K-0.00L 300000 7237 25.7.11 5.1.13 2299/12 Rabin Thakuria Nipu Kakati 0B-1K-2.50L 338000 7244 25.7.11 24.2.12 4088/12 Bini Dutta Anupam Dutta 0B-0K-14.00L 280000 9285 4.11.11 29.3.12 4641/12 Jamini Hazarika Bithy Das 0B-0K-7.25L 187500 8128 7.9.11 11.4.12 5645/12 Sarbeswar Das Dilip Das 0B-1K-0.00L 500000 11675 22.2.12 4.5.12 17. On the other hand, it is submitted that not only the purchase of the land by the petitioner is a solitary transaction showing land value at Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha. The six more transactions as per the statement issued by the Sub-Registrar extracted supra disclose that the land in respect of the said transactions is also sold at Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha as per the valuation fixed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). Therefore, the very premise that the land has been undervalued at the undue influence of the petitioner is contrary to the documentary material produced by the petitioner. The land value has been bonafide fixed by the Revenue official and accordingly sale price is paid at the time of registration of the document. It may be that the authorities felt that the land value for entire Noonmati village irrespective of its distance from the road has a greater market value potential and, thus, issued an amended notification fixing the value at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha for the entire village of Noonmati and accordingly value has been enhanced subsequent to the transaction, in question. 18. The assumption or surmise of the vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell that the property has been undervalued and that the petitioner has undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crores 91 lakhs is without any substantial basis. The seller in his statement given to the vigilance authorities has categorically stated that there is no under-valuation of the property or excess payment made to him over the value shown in the sale deed shown by him. Therefore, the contention of the vigilance cell that the petitioner has undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crore and 91 lakhs is totally unfounded and mala fide. 19. Therefore, the contention of the vigilance cell that the petitioner has undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crore and 91 lakhs is totally unfounded and mala fide. 19. The petitioner in his petition has stated that he is being unduly persecuted time and again by certain of the officers who are inimical in dispose to him to see that he does not get the gallantry award from the President In this regard, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's name has been referred for gallantry award and proposal for three gallantry awards are pending because of the want of vigilance clearance. 20. In view of the said material, it is argued that the preliminary enquiry report and the approval granted for regular enquiry are all actuated with malicious motives. The allegation of purchase of property by undervaluation and the allegation of undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crores 91 lakhs are all unfounded and baseless. Hence, argued that the preliminary report and the approval granted for regular enquiry is to be quashed. 21. Shri H. Rahman, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the preliminary enquiry report and the affidavit filed by the investigating officer before this Court disclose that the petitioner and his brother-in-law did not co-operate in the enquiry and they avoided to assist the enquiry with regard to the source of income whatever shown in the sale deed. 22. Mr. Rahman submitted that the bank loans obtained by the petitioner is subsequent to the sale transactions and his claim that he had borrowed loans from the relatives by RTGS transfer through Bank and the said loan amounts borrowed from the relatives was repaid after the bank loan was sanctioned is a doubtful version, which requires to be enquired. Counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, has produced the original passbook of the petitioner of State Bank of India, which shows the amounts he got transferred by RTGS from his relatives and also its repayment to the relatives through RTGS. The passbook contains entries from 21.08.2010 to 13.10.2014. 23. The further contention of the respondent is that the particulars for the source of money for purchase is dubious. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 . 24. The passbook contains entries from 21.08.2010 to 13.10.2014. 23. The further contention of the respondent is that the particulars for the source of money for purchase is dubious. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 . 24. In the cited case, the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the charges of misconduct against the delinquent In appeal, the Supreme Court in para 6 of the said decision has made the following observations: "6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority. Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus: 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself." 25. In its decision in Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla & Ors., reported in (2003) 1 SCC 692 , the Supreme Court held that issuance of show-cause notice for initiation of enquiry cannot be quashed since it is at a pre-mature stage for the Court to entertain the plea for quashing. 26. Upon thorough consideration of the facts, documentary materials and submissions made at the Bar, the following questions arise for consideration: "(1) Whether the findings in the preliminary enquiry are in consistent with the authentic material, which are public documents? (2) Whether the preliminary report of the vigilance and anti-corruption, which is the basis for initiating regular enquiry, justifies initiation of regular enquiry? (3) Whether it could be said that the petitioner has exercised undue influence and purchased the property at undervalue and whether he possessed undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crore 91 lakhs more than the known sources of income of Rs. 47 lakhs and odd? (4) Whether the petitioner has satisfactorily explained his income and the income of his brother-in-law for purchase of the property, in question?" 27. The notification, dated 20.08.2011, with the tabular column pertaining to different villages in the Kamrup (Metro) disclose fixation of registration value of the properties at different locations. The said document is undisputedly an authentic and inscrutably credible material. In the said document, the properties in Anuradha to Noonmati within 200 meters the value is fixed at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha and beyond 200 meters, no fixation of value is provided. Therefore, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to fix the value. The petitioner has produced credible material to show that his purchaser has applied to Deputy Commissioner for fixation of registration value for the purpose of registration. 75 lakhs per bigha and beyond 200 meters, no fixation of value is provided. Therefore, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to fix the value. The petitioner has produced credible material to show that his purchaser has applied to Deputy Commissioner for fixation of registration value for the purpose of registration. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has issued a certificate fixing the market value of Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha. The said assessment of value is not in conflict with the notification dated 20.08.2011 because the property is obviously beyond 200 meters. When there is no official fixation in the notification, it is obviously for the Deputy Commissioner considering the attending circumstances and advantages and disadvantages has fixed the registration value at Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha and it is at the instance of the seller. The other six sale transactions have been registered for the same value in respect of the same locality. It may be that in the year 2013, the authorities realized that the potential value of the property in the entire Noonmati area is quite high and, therefore, fixed the value at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha irrespective of the distance of 200 meters from the road. In view of the said material, it cannot be said that there is any undue influence or misrepresentation either by the seller or by the purchaser in getting the market value fixed. The fixation of the market value by the Additional Deputy Commissioner also cannot be said as mala fide and contrary to the notification. 28. With regard to the source of purchase, the bank statement of Sivalik Mercantile Co-operative Bank and passbook of SBI of the petitioner clearly disclose the source of purchase money paid to the seller. All the transactions are by RTGS through Bank. There has been no cash payment. Therefore, it is obvious that in a transaction where value of the property is more than 10 lakhs, the registration authorities will refer the transaction to the Income Tax Department and they would enquire into the source of income. If the source of income stated by the petitioner is doubtful or dubious, definitely, there would have been initiation of enquiry by the Income Tax authorities. If the source of income stated by the petitioner is doubtful or dubious, definitely, there would have been initiation of enquiry by the Income Tax authorities. The vigilance wing has not produced any material nor investigated at the time of preliminary enquiry in respect of that aspect of the matter as to whether the Income Tax department has initiated any enquiry on the ground that the source of money for the purchase is undisclosed income of the petitioner or his brother-in-law. That apart, in the sale deed, the details of mode of payment at different instances through the bank to the seller have been incorporated. It appears that deliberately no effort is made in the preliminary enquiry to ascertain the correctness of the materials furnished in the sale deed. On the other hand, the bank statements and passbook produced by the petitioner substantially corroborate his version regarding the source and mode of payment made to the seller. 29. The assumption or surmise on the part of the vigilance that the property is undervalued and that the petitioner has undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crores 91 lakhs, which is against the known source of income is an untenable assumption. When the seller has categorically stated that the sale price given to him is as per the sale price noted in the sale deed, it cannot be assumed or infered that the seller has been paid the sale price more than what is stated in the deed. In the absence of any such adverse information from the seller, it is untenable for the vigilance to infer that undervaluation of Rs. 2 crores 91 lakhs is an undisclosed income possessed by the petitioner. 30. In the face of the statement of the seller that he has been paid only the sale value, even assuming for a moment that it was a case of an undervaluation, it does not suggest that the petitioner can be indicted of possessing disproportionate income against his known source of income because the value paid by the petitioner to the seller is the one as disclosed in the sale deed. Merely because the value of the property is more, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner had disproportionate undisclosed income in the absence of the statement to that effect by the seller. 31. Merely because the value of the property is more, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner had disproportionate undisclosed income in the absence of the statement to that effect by the seller. 31. The Additional Advocate General submits that the requisition, dated 19.07.2013, was issued to the petitioner to submit his assets and liability statement and that he did not submit the statement. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner submits that on 17.08.2013, the petitioner has submitted the assets and liability statement for the period till December, 2011, from the date of his service. 32. In view of the reasons discussed above, question Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in negative. Question Nos. 2 and 4 are answered in affirmative. 33. The findings in the preliminary report are blatantly contrary to the material and official records, namely, with regard to registration price fixed for the purpose of registration by the authorities for registering the land, in question. The petitioner has substantially established his source of income for the purchase. 34. In the face of such material, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that permission be granted for regular enquiry is untenable. In fact, the decision of the Supreme Court in Upendra Singh's case disclose that the Court can only interfere if on the charges framed, no misconduct or other irregularity alleged is established. In this case, the findings in the preliminary report and the sanction for regular enquiry are blatantly contrary to the record and do not disclose any sort of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The preliminary enquiry report and the order of regular enquiry are quashed. 35. The material produced by the petitioner shows that his name was referred thrice for President's gallantry award and for the want of vigilance clearance, he has not been given the gallantry award. However, for the purpose of this case, that aspect is not relevant. With regard to the contempt petition, there appears to be some confusion on the part of the petitioner in understanding the scope of the enquiry, in question. The issue involved in the enquiry is not related to the earlier complaint given by his wife. It is an independent transaction not connected with the complaint given by the wife. With regard to the contempt petition, there appears to be some confusion on the part of the petitioner in understanding the scope of the enquiry, in question. The issue involved in the enquiry is not related to the earlier complaint given by his wife. It is an independent transaction not connected with the complaint given by the wife. The fact that the complaint given by the wife is closed, does not by itself prevent the Government from proceeding with the enquiry into the alleged distinct misconduct. Therefore, the initiation and conduct of enquiry during the pendency of the writ petition after the interim order does not appear to be a willful misconduct. In that view, the contempt petition is dismissed.