Ujjal Bhuyan, J.:-- This order will dispose of both WP(C) Nos.2979 of 2016 and 1121 of 2016. 2. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions are inter-related, those were heard together on 03.06.2016 and today is fixed for delivery of order. 3. Heard Ms A Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and Mr G Rahul, learned Standing Counsel, PWD (Roads). Also heard Mr H Buragohain, learned counsel, who has appeared for respondent No.2, i.e., Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam by filing caveat. 4. In WP(C) No.1121 of 2016, the challenge made is to the orders dated 27.03.2015 and 07.09.2015, both issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam (respondent No.2). By the first order dated 27.03.2015, petitioner was transferred from Golaghat to Ghilamara and by the second order dated 07.09.2015, petitioner was placed under suspension, pending drawal of departmental proceeding. 5. In WP(C) No.2979 of 2016, the challenge made is to the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by the respondent No.2, dismissing the petitioner from service. 6. Petitioner was serving as Section Assistant in the establishment of Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat Rural Road Division. While he was so serving order dated 27.03.2015 was issued by respondent No.2, whereby petitioner was transferred to and posted in the office of Executive Engineer, PWD, Lakhimpur State Road Division, Ghilamara, against an existing vacancy with the direction that petitioner was to be released immediately by the existing staff. 7. According to the petitioner, the above order was sent to him by registered post. In the meanwhile, petitioner had applied for casual leave on account of illness from 03.04.2015 to 07.04.2015. This was followed by application for earned leave on account of continued illness. In the meanwhile, he received the above order. 8. By the next order dated 07.09.2015, respondent No.2 stated that petitioner was found to be grossly negligent of Government duty, commission of misconduct and violation of office discipline, including violation of Rule - 3 of Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Therefore, pending drawal of departmental proceeding, petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1964, (hereinafter, referred to as "1964 Rules"). 9. At that stage, petitioner filed WP(C) No.1121 of 2016. Therefore, pending drawal of departmental proceeding, petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1964, (hereinafter, referred to as "1964 Rules"). 9. At that stage, petitioner filed WP(C) No.1121 of 2016. This Court by order dated 22.02.2016, issued notice and directed learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions as to whether disciplinary proceeding had been initiated or not, while directing payment of subsistence allowance. 10. Case was taken up again on 16.03.2016. Learned Standing Counsel informed the Court that disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner and had been concluded following which petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 29.02.2016. 11. This led to filing of the second writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.2979 of 2016. As already noticed above, in this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 29.02.2016, passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, dismissing him from service. Stand taken in the writ petition is that he was not aware of framing of any charge or initiation of departmental proceeding against him. Neither did he receive copy of show cause notice nor any notice from the Enquiry Officer regarding holding of departmental enquiry. No copy of the enquiry report was served upon him. Dismissal order dated 29.02.2016 was sent to the petitioner by registered post, which he received on 08.03.2016. Dismissal order has been challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as well as on merit. 12. A perusal of the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel would go to show that Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, had forwarded a memorandum submitted by Golaghat Regional Students' Union to the Chief Engineer, for information and necessary action vide his forwarding letter dated 07.04.2015. The date of the memorandum is also 07.04.2015 and it was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner with copies marked to the PWD Minister, Commissioner and Special Secretary, PWD (Roads) and Executive Engineer, PWD Rural Road Division, Golaghat. In the memorandum, it was stated that petitioner used to remain absent from his duties and was involved in other works. It was alleged that he was involved in anti-social activities as well. Action against the petitioner was demanded. In the memorandum, it was stated that petitioner used to remain absent from his duties and was involved in other works. It was alleged that he was involved in anti-social activities as well. Action against the petitioner was demanded. It appears that Chief Engineer requested the Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat Rural Road Division on 05.05.2015 to make an enquiry into the allegations made and, thereafter, to take disciplinary action. As to what happened thereafter, the record is silent. There is no indication whether such enquiry was conducted or the outcome of such enquiry. Ultimately office order dated 07.09.2015 was passed by the Chief Engineer, placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect, pending drawal of departmental proceeding. 13. In the meanwhile, from the Chief Minister's office, a letter dated 02.11.2015 was issued to the Private Secretary of PWD Minister enclosing therewith a letter dated 27.10.2015, received from Sri Prakash Sharma, Reporter, Dainik Asom, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Assam. A perusal of letter dated 27.10.2015 would go to show that Sri Prakash Sharma was a Golaghat based reporter of Dainik Asom and he alleged that petitioner despite being a Government servant was working as Golaghat correspondent of Dainik Agradoot. He, therefore, requested Hon'ble Chief Minister to take necessary action against the petitioner, so that no Government servant could engage himself as a journalist. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, there is an endorsement, which appears to be that of PWD Minister on 04.11.2015, asking the Chief Engineer to send an action taken report within 7 (seven) days, positively. The record further discloses a show cause notice dated 13.01.2016, addressed to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules should not be imposed on the petitioner, on the 2 (two) charges framed therein. As per the first charge, it was alleged that petitioner was irregular in his duty and it was found that he was an active journalist of Golaghat Press Club, which affected his performance of duties as Section Assistant. Petitioner was, therefore, charged with gross negligence of Government duty, misconduct and violation of office discipline, thus, committing breach of Rules 3 and 16 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Petitioner was, therefore, charged with gross negligence of Government duty, misconduct and violation of office discipline, thus, committing breach of Rules 3 and 16 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The second charge related to non-compliance of the transfer order dated 27.03.2015. It was stated that since petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly, a notice was published in the newspaper "Assam Tribune" on 30.07.2015 calling upon the petitioner to report for duty within 7 (seven) days, but still petitioner failed to report for duty. Petitioner was charged with negligence of Government duty, misconduct and violation of Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The show cause notice was accompanied by a statement of allegation and list of documents. No list of witnesses was prepared or annexed to the show cause notice, it appears. 14. There is nothing on record to show issuance of the said show cause notice to the petitioner, either by registered post or through office peon. There is also nothing on record to show service of such show cause notice on the petitioner. However, there is a reminder dated 27.01.2016, calling upon the petitioner to submit written statement within 7 (seven) days. Chief Engineer, thereafter, wrote to the Commissioner and Special Secretary, PWD (Roads) stating that despite issuance of show cause notice dated 13.01.2016 and reminder on 27.01.2016, petitioner had not submitted his written statement. It was stated that departmental action should be initiated against the petitioner and certain documents were forwarded to the Commissioner and Special Secretary. 15. On 20.02.2016, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD (Roads), informed the Chief Engineer that he was the competent authority to take disciplinary action as per the 1964 Rules. It was observed that he might take appropriate action as per law if he was satisfied that reasonable time was given to the delinquent official for submitting reply against the show cause notice. 16. Office order dated 23.02.2016 was issued by the Chief Engineer appointing Sri Aparup Baruah, Additional Chief Engineer (P), PWD as the Enquiry Officer to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Sri Sanjib Lahon, Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat Rural Road Division was appointed as Presenting Officer. 17. 16. Office order dated 23.02.2016 was issued by the Chief Engineer appointing Sri Aparup Baruah, Additional Chief Engineer (P), PWD as the Enquiry Officer to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Sri Sanjib Lahon, Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat Rural Road Division was appointed as Presenting Officer. 17. Though not available in the record, learned Standing Counsel, in the course of hearing produced a copy of a letter dated 23.02.2016, issued by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner stating that enquiry proceeding would be held from 03:00 pm on 27.02.2016 at PWD IB, Golaghat. Therefore, petitioner was asked to be present along with his written statement and witnesses, if any. 18. There is nothing on record to show receipt of the above notice by the petitioner. 19. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Chief Engineer on 29.02.2016. In his report, the Enquiry Officer stated that though he had sent notice of the enquiry to the petitioner, he refused to accept the notice as per statement given by Sri Nitul Das, an employee of Golaghat Rural Road Division, who was directed to deliver the notice to the petitioner. It is stated that though notice was sent to Sri Prakash Sharma, a journalist from Golaghat, which was received by his family members, he did not turn up in the enquiry held on 27.02.2016. As per the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer, then talked to him (Sri Prakash Sharma) over mobile phone with loudspeaker on to obtain his statement over phone, which was heard by other persons, namely, Sri Sanjib Lahon (Presenting Officer), Sri Mrigendra Narayan Dutta, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, (Witness No.1), Sri Rekibuddin Ahmed, Head Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer, Golaghat Rural Road Division (Witness No.2) and Sri Nitul Das, an employee in the office of the PWD, Golaghat Rural Road Division (Witness No.3). It is stated that all of them had heard Sri Prakash Sharma, who spoke at length regarding the activities of the petitioner as a journalist and witness Nos.1 and 2 in their statements before the Enquiry Officer vouched that they had heard Sri Prakash Sharma speaking over phone. Sri Prakash Sharma stated that petitioner was into journalism and worked as a newspaper reporter for more than 20 (twenty) years, besides being Secretary of Golaghat Press Club. Sri Prakash Sharma stated that petitioner was into journalism and worked as a newspaper reporter for more than 20 (twenty) years, besides being Secretary of Golaghat Press Club. Enquiry Officer stated that from the statements of witness Nos.1 and 2, involvement of the petitioner as a journalist and consequential non-performance of his Government duties was proved. Charge No.2 was also held to have been proved. Statements of PWs-1, 2 and 3, as recorded by the Enquiry Officer are available in the record. 20. From the above, what transpires is that there were some allegations against the petitioner that he was a journalist and that he was neglecting Government duties. It appears that in view of above complaints, petitioner was transferred from Golaghat to Ghilamara. For one reason or the other, this transfer order could not be effected. Thereafter, petitioner was placed under suspension. What followed, thereafter, is highly controversial. While according to the respondents, show cause notice dated 13.01.2016 was issued to the petitioner, he has stated on oath that he did not receive any copy of the said show cause notice, as a result of which, he could not submit written statement. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 23.02.2016. Enquiry Officer is stated to have issued notice to the petitioner on the same day itself, i.e., on 23.02.2016, stating that enquiry would be held on 27.02.2016. Petitioner has stated on oath that he did not receive copy of this notice as well. As already noticed above, there is nothing on record to indicate receipt of the above notice by the petitioner. If this is not enough, what followed thereafter, is quite bizarre. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, no list of witnesses was annexed thereto, though list of documents was annexed. There was no mention of any witness who would adduce evidence to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. Nevertheless, notice was issued to Sri Prakash Sharma to give evidence. Prakash Sharma did not turn up in person in the enquiry. However, his statement was recorded over mobile phone with loudspeaker on, who spoke against the petitioner. Enquiry Officer recorded that witness Nos.1, 2 and 3 had heard the statement of Sri Prakash Sharma over mobile phone with loudspeaker on. In view of such statement, charge No.1 against the petitioner was held to be proved. However, his statement was recorded over mobile phone with loudspeaker on, who spoke against the petitioner. Enquiry Officer recorded that witness Nos.1, 2 and 3 had heard the statement of Sri Prakash Sharma over mobile phone with loudspeaker on. In view of such statement, charge No.1 against the petitioner was held to be proved. Firstly, neither Sri Prakash Sharma nor witness Nos.1, 2 and 3 were mentioned as witnesses in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Therefore, Enquiry Officer should not have recorded their statements to the prejudice of the petitioner. In so far recording of statement of Sri Prakash Sharma over mobile phone with loudspeaker on is concerned, this is something which is unheard of. The same had clearly vitiated the enquiry proceeding. 21. Enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Chief Engineer on 29.02.2016. On that day itself, i.e., on 29.02.2016, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner by the Chief Engineer. The record does not disclose forwarding of a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. From the show cause notice as well as from the notings in the record, it is evident that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was conducted under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules. Rule 9 lays down the detailed procedure for imposing penalties. As per Rule 9 (2), at the time of delivering the charges, the disciplinary authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and a list of witnesses by which and by whom, each article of charges is proposed to be sustained. As per Rule 9 (7), at the conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of enquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. As per recent amendment of the 1964 Rules, in Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 9, it is provided that the disciplinary authority shall forward a copy of the enquiry report to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires his written representation to the disciplinary authority within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the enquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation submitted by the Government servant, if any, together with the enquiry record and record his findings on each of the charges. 22. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation submitted by the Government servant, if any, together with the enquiry record and record his findings on each of the charges. 22. There are several decisions of this Court, both Single Bench and Division Bench, holding that the procedure laid down in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules is of mandatory character and infraction thereof would vitiate the departmental proceeding. From the record as well as from the impugned order itself, it is quite clear that the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 was given a complete go bye by the disciplinary authority. Even as per Rule 9 (9), copy of the enquiry report was required to be given to the petitioner seeking his representation within 15 (fifteen) days. Instead of doing that, what has happened is that on 23.02.2016, Enquiry Officer was appointed; he held his enquiry on 27.02.2016 by adopting a bizarre method of recording evidence as discussed above, submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 29.02.2016 and on that day itself, impugned dismissal order was passed by the disciplinary authority. 23. Thus, the impugned order was passed in extreme haste in complete disregard to the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. 24. In that view of the matter, impugned dismissal order dated 29.02.2016 is wholly untenable and is liable to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, order dated 29.02.2016 is hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, suspension of the petitioner shall stand revived. As a result, petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of suspension, i.e., 07.09.2015. 25. Having quashed the dismissal order, Court is of the view that now that the petitioner is aware of the show cause notice dated 13.01.2016 and has a copy of the same, he shall submit his written statement by 01.07.2016, where after, the disciplinary authority will take a decision, whether to accept the written statement or to hold disciplinary proceeding. In the event, disciplinary authority proposes to hold disciplinary proceeding, in view of the discussions made above, a new set of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer may be appointed and the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules should be followed in letter and spirit. 26. In the event, disciplinary authority proposes to hold disciplinary proceeding, in view of the discussions made above, a new set of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer may be appointed and the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules should be followed in letter and spirit. 26. However, in the event, the written statement is accepted, the disciplinary authority shall take a decision regarding revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner and his reinstatement in service etc. 27. In addition to the above, the disciplinary authority shall also take a decision whether to continue with the suspension or to reinstate the petitioner. In so far transfer of the petitioner is concerned, Court would refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage. 28. Writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above but without any order as to cost(s). 29. Record produced by Mr. G. Rahul, learned Standing Counsel, PWD is returned back. --