JUDGEMENT : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. The respondent/writ petitioner is represented by the learned counsel Mr. S.B. Prasad. 2. The respondent/writ petitioner was an LDA in the Inspectorate Office of the Board of Trustees of the ATPPF & PF Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’) and the disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against her with the charge memo dated 8.11.2004, where the following allegations were leveled against the delinquent :- “You are found to have committed the following offences unbecoming of an employee of the Board and comprising impudent, incontinent acts of indiscipline and grave misconduct rendering you unsuitable to be retained in the services to serve public interest. The penalty aimed at is dismissal from services. 1. You are found to have still continuing immoral and illicit relationship with an officer of the Board namely Shri K.R. Nag, Addl. PF Commissioner (under suspension) although you were given disciplinary awards on past two occasions for such proven misconduct with strict caution for amending your character and conduct. You were retained in services on both the said occasions affording you fair and reasonable opportunity to amend yourself. But you have deliberately undermined the authority to continue with the same immoral and illicit relations with the person concerned, fully knowing that the later has his legally married wife with grown up children. Due to your arrogance you have deliberately thrown away all ethical values and become quite belligerent to defy the authority's cautions, issued at least on three past occasions, to held in yourself. You make Shri K.R. Nag, who goes to North Lakhimpur quite frequently to stay with you at your rented house. You have flouted your own written assurance of good conduct. You are therefore charged with impudent moral turpitude and defiance of lawful authority both constituting grave misconduct. You are therefore asked to submit your statement of defence if any, clearly stating as to why the penalty aimed at should not be awarded to you. You may also state if you desire to be heard in person. Your submission must reach this office within fifteen days time from the date of receipt of this charge sheet”. 3. You are therefore asked to submit your statement of defence if any, clearly stating as to why the penalty aimed at should not be awarded to you. You may also state if you desire to be heard in person. Your submission must reach this office within fifteen days time from the date of receipt of this charge sheet”. 3. The delinquent in her reply dated 30.11.2004 denied the charges and stated that there is only family relationship with K.R. Nag and it is not any illicit relationship, as has been alleged in the charge sheet. She also stated that if the relationship would have been immoral, the family members of K.R. Nag would have definitely objected but they never complained of any immoral relationship, although he is a married man with grown up children. Therefore this itself should allay all doubt about the nature of relationship. 4. Dissatisfied with the response of the delinquent, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and parallel inquiry proceeding was conducted against the writ petitioner and K.R. Nag, who was then serving as the Addl. P.F. Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 08.02.2006 (page 51—72) found the charges to have been proved and accepting the finding, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, through the impugned order dated 18.05.2006 (page 123). 5. The aggrieved delinquent then challenged the order of the disciplinary authority and in her WP(C) No.5586/2010, the delinquent firstly contended that on the basis of the specific allegation, no disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated and 2ndly it was also contended that the delinquent is penalized without adherence to the legal norms of departmental proceeding. 6. The learned Single Judge found that although Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer were appointed, the case was never presented by the Presenting Officer and finding was reached on the basis of direct question of the witnesses by the Enquiry Officer. Moreover some of the witnesses were examined in the absence of the delinquent and therefore she had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The disciplinary authority and the Presenting Officer also deposed as witnesses in the inquiry. Therefore noticing the unlawful manner in conducting the inquiry, the same was found to be vitiated by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the disciplinary proceeding was declared to be vitiated and the same was quashed, directing reinstatement of the delinquent with 50% back wages. 7.1. Mr. Therefore noticing the unlawful manner in conducting the inquiry, the same was found to be vitiated by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the disciplinary proceeding was declared to be vitiated and the same was quashed, directing reinstatement of the delinquent with 50% back wages. 7.1. Mr. N.C. Das, the learned senior counsel representing the employer submits that the conduct of the delinquent was such that she could not be retained in service in the interest of the organization and therefore the order of compulsory retirement was not only prompted by the charge of moral turpitude but it was also in public interest. 7.2. The learned senior counsel further submits that Shri K.R. Nag, the Addl. P.F. Commissioner was also punished with compulsory retirement but he accepted the penalty without making any challenge to the disciplinary order. 8.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.B. Prasad, the learned counsel submits that it is a case of no evidence since the only witness presented by the disciplinary authority in his deposition, never testified about any illicit relationship between the delinquent and K.R. Nag. The witness Tulan Ch. Nath was a chowkidar in the office and he categorically stated that Nag had not visited the office of the delinquent and he never saw the delinquent with Mr. Nag. 8.2. The learned counsel submits that although the disciplinary proceeding was conducted under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the procedure prescribed under Rule 9(6) was wholly disregarded and the charges were declared to have been proved without facilitating the delinquent to cross-examine the material witnesses. In fact the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority and the Presenting Officer, have all acted in a biased fashion and conclusions were reached by putting leading question to the delinquent by the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer had practically no role as the prosecutor. 9. We find here that the writ petitioner was ordered for compulsory retirement not in a public interest but it was certainly stigmatic, as it related to charges of immoral relationship. Therefore this case can’t be treated to be one where the non-stigmatic order of compulsory retirement was ordered. In our perception the contention raise to the contrary by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, can’t be accepted in the face of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority. 10. Therefore this case can’t be treated to be one where the non-stigmatic order of compulsory retirement was ordered. In our perception the contention raise to the contrary by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, can’t be accepted in the face of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority. 10. Normal relationship amongst the employees of the organization is not prohibited and in the absence of any such restriction, the petitioner’s inter-action with an officer of the organization can’t normally be a matter of disciplinary action. Interestingly no witness was presented from the side of the family of the two delinquents to prove the charge of illicit relationship and in fact, no complaint by any of the family members, had prompted the allegation of immoral relationship. Therefore the possibility of the inter-action to be between two family friends can’t entirely be ruled out. We are constrained to take this view as the only witness from the side of the disciplinary authority, spoke of no illicit relationship between the two delinquents. 11. That apart the proceedings in this case were conducted under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, as is reflected in the communication dated 4.9.2006 but we find that the procedural requirement specified in Rule 9 were disregarded. Some of the witnesses were examined in respect of the charges leveled against the other delinquent namely K.R. Nag and those witnesses were not examined in presence of the present delinquent. Moreover the Presenting Officer had no role to prop up the case and it was the Enquiry Officer who tried to elicit the desired response by putting leading question. 12. Significantly the only witness on behalf of the disciplinary authority in his deposition stated that he found nothing objectionable in the relationship between the delinquent and K.R. Nag. Therefore we concur with the Single Judge verdict that the finding was recorded against the delinquent, without any material evidence and through a vitiated proceeding. 13. In the above circumstances, the finding and the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge are found to be cogent and acceptable and therefore we declare that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. 13. In the above circumstances, the finding and the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge are found to be cogent and acceptable and therefore we declare that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. At this stage, we are told that although no stay order was passed in the Writ Appeal, the writ petitioner was not reinstated, because of which, the Contempt Case (C) No.67/2017 had to be filed by her. The learned Single Judge on 7.6.2013 had directed listing of the Contempt Case on disposal of the Writ Appeal No.61/2013. Now as we had dismissed the Writ Appeal, the Contempt Case which is listed today on being mentioned, is also accordingly disposed of. 15. For our above decision, the employer should immediately implement the direction given by the Writ Court on 15.10.2012, in the WP(C) No.5586/2010. If the reinstatement with 50% back-wages is not allowed in the next eight weeks, the respondent/writ petitioner has the liberty to initiate contempt proceeding. 16. With the above order, both matters are disposed of in the manner indicated. No costs.