JUDGMENT AND ORDER Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Govt. Advocate, Mizoram, appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Notice on private respondent No. 6 was issued by registered post but he did not appear in the matter till date. Further the petitioner has no such grievances against the said respondent No. 6 in this petition. 3. Petitioner is a Grade-II (Non-functional Driver) under the Police Department of the State and is eligible for promotion to Grade - I Driver of the said Department. Petitioner earned accolades for his sincere performance of his duties in the Department. 4. While serving under the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai District, the petitioner received a Charge Memorandum dated 13.04.2012 from the said Superintendent of Police with the article of charges and wherein it was stated that a departmental proceeding has been contemplated against him with regard to the allegations - (i) that he took out unit's Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/D - 7203 on 25.03.2012, Sunday without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, (ii) drove the said unit's vehicle on 25.03.2012 under the influence of alcohol in contravention of DGP's Circular No. CB/PHQ/CIR/04/40 dated 10.02.2006 and SP's order No. SP-LTI/MT- 19/CIR/04/10 dated 26.10.2010 and (iii) on 25.03.2012, Sunday he carried one civilian respondent No.6 of College Veng in the said departmental vehicle in violation of DGP's aforesaid Circular dated 10.02.2006 and Sp's order dated 26.10.2010. By the said memorandum of charge the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days from the receipt of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner on 20.04.2012 submitted his reply with regard to the aforesaid charge memorandum dated 13.04.2012 before the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai. 5. Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai i.e. the Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the said show cause reply, wherein the petitioner, the charge official did not admit the charge against him; decided to enquire into the matter against the petitioner with regard charges framed against him and in exercise of the power conferred under section 7 of the Police Act read with rule 1038 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, Vol-1, vide order dated 03.05.2012 appointed one Mr. B. Laldikpuia, Mizoram Police Service, Addl. B. Laldikpuia, Mizoram Police Service, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and to submit his report to him at the earliest for necessary action with a copy to the petitioner. The said SP by another order No. SP-LTI-RO-PF (K.C. Rezimon)/2012/650 dated 03.05.2012 appointed one Sh. Lalramdina Sailo, Sub-Inspector as presenting officer in the case. 6. Immediately on receipt of the same, the petitioner informed the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai that he was arrested under the order of the said Mr. B. Laldikpuia, MPS, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai because of the unwarranted incident of 25.03.2012 and as such another Enquiry Officer be appointed otherwise he may not have a fair trial. Accordingly, the said Superintendent of Police by his order dated 04.05.2012 another police personnel namely Mr. Zahmingthanga, MPS, SDPO, Lawngtlai, was appointed as a new Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. 7. On due intimation, the petitioner appeared before the said Enquiry Officer on 23.05.2012 for hearing of the enquiry and on being asked in presence of the said presenting officer the petitioner informed that he is not willing to engage any defence assistant and submitted that he shall face the enquiry on his own. The Enquiry Officer during the said hearing read over and explained all the three charges to the petitioner that were framed against him to which the petitioner pleaded guilty by stating that the charges brought against him in those articles are correct and admitted the same as alleged and the petitioner prayed before the Enquiry Officer to forgive him whatever he had done promising that it shall not be repeated in future. As the petitioner during the said enquiry pleaded guilty with regard to the charges levelled against him, the Enquiry Officer considered not to examine the records of the case and also the statement of the official witnesses place by the authority and on such examination of the charged official i.e. the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer completed the said enquiry submitted the report dated 23.05.2012 before the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the statement of the charge official by serving a copy of the said order sheet to the petitioner. 8. 8. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai after going through the aforesaid report of the concerned Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, though enquiry report was served on the charged official i.e. the petitioner on 28.05.2012 giving him reasonable opportunities for making his representation if any and as his Office did not received any such representation from the petitioner he came to a conclusion that the said charged official is not willing to make any representation and on going through the said report of the Enquiry Officer agreed with the same. Accordingly, the said Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the power conferred under section 7 of the Police Act read with rule 1044 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 by his Office order dated 04.07.2012 awarded a punishment of 'withholding of three (3) years increment with cumulative effect'. By the said order the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f 25.06.2012 holding that his suspension period from 26.03.2012 to 24.06.2012 shall be treated as 'not on duty' and he will not be entitle any monetary benefit other than the subsistence allowances that he had already drawn. 9. Being aggrieved with the imposition of said major penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 04.07.2012, the petitioner on 09.08.2012 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Range Police Headquarter, Aizawl as provided under the Mizoram Police Manual wherein the petitioner specifically urged before the appellate authority amongst others that (i) the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry as per the provision of rule 1038 (7) of the Mizoram Police Manual read with rule 14 & 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as adopted by the Govt. of Mizoram, (ii) the Disciplinary Authority violated the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as no reasonable opportunity was given to him as under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India before imposing major penalty, (iii) the Disciplinary Authority did not issue any notice to the petitioner before imposing said major penalty as required under the provision of the Mizoram Police Manual and therefore prayed before the appellate authority to set aside the said major penalty imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority on 04.07.2012. 10. 10. After the said appeal was preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority on 10.08.2012 vide letter No. 16014/DIG(NR)/KCR/2012/2 sought for necessary comments from the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai, the Disciplinary Authority in terms of which the said Superintendent vide No. SP-LTI/RO-PF (K.C. Rejimon)/2012/1148 dated 08.10.2012 submitted the para wise reply to the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner. 11. The appellate authority vide his order under No. C.16014/DIG(NR)/ KCR/2012 dated 18.12.2012 came to a finding that the petitioner/appellant fully admitted his misconduct duly proved by the Enquiry Officer in his report as well as by the petitioner/appellant in his written reply to the charge memorandum and came to a conclusion that the quantum of punishment exceeded the gravity of misconduct of the petitioner/appellant and accordingly reduced and modified the punishment of stoppage of 3 (three) years Service increment with cumulative effect into stoppage of 2 (two) years Service increment with cumulative effect keeping the other punishments/conditions unchanged. 12. Being aggrieved the said action of the State respondents; the petitioner has preferred this petition. 13. In the present petition, the petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer did not give him any opportunity to engage any defence assistant nor the petitioner was informed that by the Enquiry Officer that he is entitled for such defence assistant. The petitioner has also submitted that before the Enquiry Officer on the date of hearing i.e. 23.05.2012, he did not accept the charges lodged against him as reported by the Enquiry Officer in his said enquiry report. The petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that as provided under the Mizoram Police Manual in Rule 1039, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue any notice to him before imposing the aforesaid major penalty. 14. Rule 1039 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2006 (Vol-1) provides as follows: "After the inquiry has been completed the person charged shall be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and be called upon to show cause, within 15 days of receipt of the Report to enable him to make his submission or representation in regards to the findings of the inquiry before the disciplinary authority passes its order imposing the penalty." 15. Petitioner has placed his reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1991) Suppl (1) SCC 504, AIR 1983 SC 454 and AIR 1961 SC 1070 . 16. Petitioner has placed his reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1991) Suppl (1) SCC 504, AIR 1983 SC 454 and AIR 1961 SC 1070 . 16. The State respondents contested the matter by filing their affidavit on 27.11.2013 and submitted that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum issued under Memo No. SP-LTI/RO- 39/2006/477 dated 09.05.2006 for the misconduct committed by him on 28.4.2006 before he was eligible for promotion to the Driver Grade-I and petitioner's service being not satisfactory, he was not considered for promotion to the Grade-I Driver following the provisions prescribe at para 449 (4) of the Mizoram Police Manual. It is submitted that because of his unsatisfactory conduct and performance of duty, the petitioner was not considered for promotion to Grade-I Driver. For the said misconduct, the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai vide order No. SP-LTI/DE/K.C.Rejimon/1087 dated 11.12.2006 already imposed a punishment of stoppage of 4 (four) years Service increment with cumulative effect. 17. The State respondents also submitted that without any authority and without taking any prior permission from the competent authority the petitioner drove the Government vehicle and further he was found to be under the influence of alcohol while on duty on the date of the incident. The Medical Officer concerned after examining the petitioner gave his report in affirmative to that extent. The petitioner himself admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he consumed alcohol on the date of incident. Moreover, in violation of the Circulars & Orders of the Superior Authority/Officers of the department, the petitioner picked up a Civilian in the vehicle concerned on the date of the incident, which he admitted before the Enquiry Officer. The State respondents also submitted that since the charges against the petitioners were duly proved by the Enquiry Officer as submitted in his Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority accordingly imposed the impugned punishment upon the petitioner on 04.07.2012 and therefore, the question of any violation of Constitutional rights or violation of principle of national justice does not arise. 18. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram produced the records in original with regard to the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner. 19. 18. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram produced the records in original with regard to the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner. 19. From the said record it is seen that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 23.05.2012 and submitted a written statement before him in vernacular (Mizo) language by signing the same (Learned Govt. Advocate has placed an English translation of the said statement of the petitioner dated 23.05.2012). It appears that on being asked by the Enquiry Officer on the said date, the petitioner declined to have his Defence Assistant. The Enquiry Officer on the same day i.e. 23.05.2012 read over and explained to the petitioner all the article of charges levelled against him to which pleaded guilty, admitting the charges brought against him to be correct and prayed for forgiveness, promising not to repeat the same in future. On such admission of the charged official, the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer considered not to examine and record the statement of the departmental witnesses, completed the enquiry on 23.05.2012 itself and kept the proceeding pending for submission of his Enquiry Report before the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer gave a copy of the said order sheet dated 23.05.2012 to the petitioner and on 28.05.2012 submitted his Enquiry Report before the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai, the Disciplinary Authority. 20. Rule 1039 under Section II of Chapter-XIX of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2006 specifically provides that after the inquiry is completed, the charged official/delinquent person is required to be supplied with a copy of the enquiry report of the inquiring authority and the said charged official is required to be called upon to show cause, within 15 days of receipt of the such Enquiry Report to enable him to make his submission or representation in regards to the findings of the inquiry before the Disciplinary Authority issues the order imposing the penalty. 21. In the present case, from the records it is seen that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.05.2012 and from his daily order sheet dated 23.05.2012, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer gave the copy of the said order sheet dated 23.05.2012 to the petitioner free of cost. 21. In the present case, from the records it is seen that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.05.2012 and from his daily order sheet dated 23.05.2012, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer gave the copy of the said order sheet dated 23.05.2012 to the petitioner free of cost. But the record does not reveal that either the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority served the said Enquiry Report dated 28.05.2012 to the concerned charged official, i.e. the petitioner, before imposing punishment upon him. 22. In the present case, without serving any Enquiry Report to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, without looking into this aspect, exercising his power conferred under Section 7 of the Police Act read with Rule 1044 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, vide his order dated 04.07.2012 imposed major penalty upon the petitioner by 'withholding of three (3) years Service increment with cumulative effect', treating his suspension period from 26.03.2012 to 24.06.2012, the date prior to his reinstatement as 'not on duty' without giving him any monetary benefit other than the subsistence allowances that he had already drawn and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.12.2012 in appeal of the petitioner reduced the said punishment to the 'stoppage of 2 (two) years Service increment with cumulative effect' keeping other conditions of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 04.07.2012 same. The Appellate Authority also did not examine the fact that the petitioner, the charged official was not served with the Enquiry Report. 23. Considered the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner. It is a settled law that an enquiry report in a disciplinary proceeding is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee so that he/she can make an adequate representation explaining his own stand/stance and non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of the principle of natural justice. 24. In view of the above, the decision of the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai, the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the impugned penalty upon the petitioner vide No. SP-LTI/RO-39/2012/972 dated 4th July 2012 and reduction of such penalty by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (NR & SR), Mizoram, Aizawl, the Appellate Authority, vide No. C.16014/DIG(NR)/KCR/2012 dated 18th December, 2012 being bad in law, are hereby set aside and quashed. 25. 25. The respondents concerned, if so advised, may initiate the said departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the Charge Memorandum No. SP-LTI/RO-PF(D/G-II) K.C. Rejimon/2012/544 dated 13th Aril 2012 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai, afresh, from the stage of furnishing the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer dated 28.05.2012 to the petitioner. 26. With the aforesaid direction and observation this writ petition stands allowed.