Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has produced the records of the departmental proceeding No.04 dated 07.05.2004. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the final order of dismissal under No. TSR-6/DP-04/2011/Estt/11/11430-52 dated 11.11.2011, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, read with the corrigendum dated 17.11.2011 Annexure 5/A to the writ petition and other incidental orders as emanated therefrom viz. the appellate order dated 16.12.2011, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, and the revisional order dated 18.02.2012, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner while working as the Lnk(GD) in 6th Bn, TSR (IR-II) was charged for committing misconduct by the memorandum dated 27.05.2011. The imputations as was leveled against the petitioner are as follows: “Article-I That the said No. 97040845 LNK (GD) Narayan Ghosh and No. 00060158 Rfn (GD) Ananta Hari Jamatia, ‘E’ Coy of 6th Bn TSR (IR-II) while they were posted at Aidangkur TSR Post, on 18.02.2011 at about 2200 hrs they had absented themselves from their camp without prior permission of the Competent authority which is a gross misconduct punishable under section 12(1) of TSR Act, 1983. Article-II That the said No. 97040845 LNK (GD) Narayan Ghosh and No. 00060158 Rfn(GD) Ananta Hari Jamatia, ‘E’ Coy of 6th Bn TSR (IR-II) while they were posted at Aidangkur TSR Post, they were detailed as Guard Commander and Front Sentry respectively of Aidangkur TSR Post for the day of 18.02.2011 from 0700 hrs, but on that day at about 2200 hrs they had absented themselves from their camp without prior permission of the Competent authority keeping the camp personnel and Govt. properties of the post as well in in-secured condition which is a gross misconduct punishable under section 12(1) of TSR Act 1983. properties of the post as well in in-secured condition which is a gross misconduct punishable under section 12(1) of TSR Act 1983. Article-III That the said No. 97040845 LNK (GD) Narayan Ghosh and No. 00060158 Rfn (GD) Ananta Hari Jamatia, ‘E’ Coy of 6th Bn TSR (IR-II) while they were posted at Aidangkur TSR Post, on 18.02.2011 at about 2200 hrs they had absented themselves from their camp without prior permission of the Competent authority and consumed liquor with civilian women in a civil house which is a prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Rifles punishable under section 12(1) of TSR Act 1983. Article-IV That the said No. 97040845 LNK (GD) Narayan Ghosh and No. 00060158 Rfn(GD) Ananta Hari Jamatia, ‘E’ Coy of 6th Bn TSR (IR-II) while they were posted at Aidangkur TSR Post they were arrested by the Police of Champahowar PS on 20.02.2011 as suspects in connection with Champahowar PS Case No. 07/11 U/S 376(2)(G)/302/201/34 IPC alleging to be involved in rape with murder of one Nilima Debbarma of Aidangkur which is a prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Rifles punishable under section 12(1) of TSR Act 1983.” 3. Thereafter, since the petitioner denied the allegations by filing a written statement of defence dated 09.06.2011, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the inquiry was instituted against him. The petitioner, as it appears from the records, participated in the inquiry. When the petitioner was asked to engage the defence counsel, by filing a written note to the inquiry officer on 27.05.2011, Annexure R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner had clearly stated that he himself would conduct his defence. Thereafter the inquiry officer had returned the finding that the charges as brought against him were all established and the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 01.10.2011. In the said report, the following opinion has been recorded by the inquiry officer : “Considering the statement of witnesses and records I have arrived at the conclusion that Article No.I, II & III of the charges levied against No. 97040845 Lnk (GD) Narayan Ghosh and No. 00060158 Rfn (GD) Ananta Hari Jamatia of ‘E’ Coy proved beyond all shadow of doubt.” 4. Thereafter the provisional punishment order dated 20.10.2011, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, was passed proposing that the petitioner would be dismissed from the service under Section 12(1)(j) of TSR Act, 1983. The petitioner was however afforded four weeks time for filing any representation against the provisional punishment order. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his representation on 02.11.2011 contending that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case and he had prayed for lenient view in his matter else he would suffer irreparable loss. Having considered such representation, the final order dated 11.11.2011, Annexure-5 to the writ petition has been passed by the disciplinary authority, the Commandant, 6th Bn TSR (IR-II) imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service with immediate effect. The said final order was corrected by the corrigendum dated 17.11.2011, Annexure 5/A to the writ petition whereby the Para-5 to the said final order dated 11.11.2011 was corrected as “the undersigned imposes the penalty of dismissal from service under Section 12 (1)(j) of TSR Act, 1983, the order shall come in force from the date of issue of this order”. In the order dated 11.11.2011, in place of ‘imposes’ the word ‘proposes’ was there. The word ‘proposes’ has been substituted by the word ‘imposes’ by the said corrigendum dated 17.11.2011. By a separate order dated 11.11.2011 Annexure 5/B to the writ petition it has been held that the period of suspension will be treated as “dies non” and it was further ordered that the petitioner would not get pay and allowances other than the subsistence allowance which he had drawn and such period of suspension shall not count as duty for the purpose of pension and other benefits. 5. Being aggrieved by the said final order dated 11.11.2011 read with the corrigendum dated 17.11.2011, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP & OPS), the appellate authority, raising various grounds. But the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 16.12.2011, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It has been held by the appellate authority as under: “5. TSR is a paramilitary force which has its won dignity, discipline, sanctity and long standing reputation as a law abiding force in the state. But the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 16.12.2011, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It has been held by the appellate authority as under: “5. TSR is a paramilitary force which has its won dignity, discipline, sanctity and long standing reputation as a law abiding force in the state. Having belonged to such a force, the delinquent LNK Narayan Ghosh being a guard Commander, sunk to a low level of leaving the camp unauthorisedly at odd hours of night, mingling with an unholy association of woman, resorting to drinking and leaving the camp completely insecure and unsafe in such extremist prone area-all of the offences attracting the three articles of charges which are proved beyond reasonable doubt, is just not fit for retention in an elite force like TSR any more. Taking into account this aspect of the sanctity, discipline and dignity of the force like TSR and to uphold the dignity of the force, I am inclined, in the best interest of the discipline and sanctity of the force, to over look the error of technical judgment of the disciplinary authority as appended above. And as per rule 27(c)(i) and as per rule 27(2)(c) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and as per Rule 46(7)(a) of TSR(DCSC etc), Rules, 1986, I Sri T.B. Roy, IPS, DIG(AP & Ops) being the appellate authority, confirm the penalty of Dismissal from service, as ordered by the disciplinary authority vide his order No. TSR-6/DP-04/2011/Estt/11/11430-52 dated 11.11.2011 as the penalty imposed is found commensurate to the offence.” 6. The petitioner had desperately filed a revision petition on 02.01.2012 to the Commandant, 6th Bn TSR(IR-II), the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had straightway rejected the said revision petition for obvious reason that when the superior authority after due scrutiny had dismissed the appeal, the disciplinary authority did not have any further jurisdiction to revise the said order. The revisional order dated 18.02.2012, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, has also been challenged here. 7. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two grounds of objection, inorder to advance the challenge in the writ petition, viz. The revisional order dated 18.02.2012, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, has also been challenged here. 7. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two grounds of objection, inorder to advance the challenge in the writ petition, viz. (i) that the finding returned by the inquiry officer is without evidence or on no evidence and (ii) that the copy of the inquiry officer’s report was not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner’s representation against the provisional penalty order was an uninformed representation and therefore the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced for not having substantive opportunity against the finding of the inquiry officer which is one of the statutory safeguards provided to any delinquent officer under Rule 15(2)of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. It is to be noted for purpose of reference that under Rule 40 of Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1986 the following has been provided : “40. Procedure for Award of a Major Punishment : Procedure for award of Major Punishments specified in Section 12 of the Act shall (mutatis mutandis) be the same as is provided for imposing of major penalties on Government servants under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as modified from time to time.” Thus, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 obligates the disciplinary authority as under : “15(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any , with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.” So being the mandatory provisions, the disciplinary authority has flouted that obligation and the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable safeguard which he could have availed for his defence. 8. That apart, Mr. 8. That apart, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has referred the judgment dated 05.09.2016 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in Sessions Trial being S.T(T-1) 08 of 2013 whereby the petitioner was acquitted from the charge as framed against him under Section 302/34 of the IPC. While acquitting the petitioner, the Additional Sessions Judge has observed in that judgment dated 05.09.2016, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, as under : “On my marshalling the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses from the aforesaid four groups I find that the theory of last seen together is not conclusive and is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-14 and PW-23. Now coming to the evidence of group-2 it appears that the Doctors i.e., Pws-10, 11 and 13 gave their opinion in a consensus that the cause of death of Nilima Debbarma was asphyxia following hanging which is suicidal in nature and there was no evidence of violence in and around of the private part of the deceased and no seminal stain or spermatozoa found from labia majora and labia minora. Even Dr. B.K. Mohapatra and Dr. T.D. Dogra affirmed it in their evidence that in his opinion this is a case of hanging which could be suicidal in nature. He further affirmed that the opinion as given in the last part of his report that the investigating agency is to be decide the manner of death after considering all other circumstantial evidence, was a mere suggestion and it was not a medico legal opinion. So having may due consideration to the above facts and circumstances I am of the view that prosecution failed to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Nilima was homicidal in nature and the present three accused persons were involved in the commission of her death.” 9. Since the petitioner was not charged under Section 376, he was only charged under Section 304/34 of the IPC. Finally he was acquitted. It appears that there was no material at all to prove that the death was homicidal in nature. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has contended that when the charge was similar in nature, the inquiry officer could have held that there shall be no finding against the judicial observation. Mr. Finally he was acquitted. It appears that there was no material at all to prove that the death was homicidal in nature. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has contended that when the charge was similar in nature, the inquiry officer could have held that there shall be no finding against the judicial observation. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel having confronted by the court has acceded that the judgment was delivered much after the inquiry was completed. 10. Be that as it may, that from a reading of the charge it would be apparent that except the Article-IV there is no gamut of resembling elements in the entire charge framed in the criminal trial. The inquiry officer has clearly held that Article-IV has not been proved nor was there any material to hold that Article-IV of the memorandum dated 27.05.2011 is proved. According to the inquiry officer, the other charges, borne in Articles-I, II and III, have been proved. The petitioner could not file any informed representation as the disciplinary authority had admittedly omitted to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner in terms of Rule 15(2) of the CCS & CCA (Rules), 1965 along with the provisional observation made on the basis of the said inquiry report. 11. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner after the provisional order has filed a representation seeking mercy of the disciplinary authority as such it has to be deemed by this court that the petitioner has acceded to the inquiry report. This court is unable to accept such proposition inasmuch as a person who is totally uninformed about what there is in the inquiry report, no adverse inference can be drawn against him even if he pleaded for leniency and mercy in the matter. This court is unable to accept such proposition inasmuch as a person who is totally uninformed about what there is in the inquiry report, no adverse inference can be drawn against him even if he pleaded for leniency and mercy in the matter. There cannot be any difference of opinion that failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 15(2) of the CCS & CCA Rules, would definitely be prejudicial and denial of an important safeguard to the delinquent officer and as such this court is of the further opinion that the provisional punishment order dated 20.10.2011, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, final order dated 11.11.2011, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the corrigendum dated 17.11.2011, Annexure 5/A to the writ petition, the order dated 11.11.2011 declaring the period of suspension as dies non and denying the period of suspension as the period spent on duty and other benefits, Annexure 5/B to the writ petition, the order dated 16.12.2011 of the appellate authority, Annexure-6 to the writ petition and the order dated 18.02.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, are all unsustainable and accordingly those are set aside and quashed. 12. Notwithstanding whatever as observed above, this court will not pass any further order as it would be appropriate in the circumstances to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority to commence the proceeding from the stage when the disciplinary authority would supply a copy of the inquiry report in terms of Rule 15(2)of the CCS & CCA Rule, 1965 read with Rule 40 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions etc.) Rules,1986. The disciplinary authority shall provide a copy of the said inquiry report within a period of 15 days from the date when the disciplinary authority shall receive a copy of this order providing the petitioner 15 days time for filing his representation, if any. The petitioner will be entitled to raise all defences as he would deem appropriate. It is further directed that in view of the pendency of the matter for a long time, the disciplinary authority pass the final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. It is made clear that the provisional observations may also be communicated to the petitioner along with the copy of the inquiry report. It is made clear that the provisional observations may also be communicated to the petitioner along with the copy of the inquiry report. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this court. Since the petitioner has been dismissed after due inquiry this court is not inclined to pass any direction for his reinstatement at this stage, but if it is found by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is not liable to be imposed with the major punishment like dismissal or termination, he shall be immediately reinstated in the service and necessary orders be passed by the disciplinary authority in respect of his period of suspension and other financial benefits. A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents as expeditiously as possible. The records produced by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. is returned. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.