JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State respondents are represented by Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, for the Education Department. However there is none to represent the respondent No.8. 2. The matter arise out of an incident on 21.2.2009 at about 6 P.M. involving the petitioner and the respondent No.8 in the office room of the Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam. In his report dated 23.2.2009 (Annexure-A), the DEE reported that there was verbal exchange of words between the Research Officer (R.O.) and the Assistant Research Officer (A.R.O) and in fact the junior officer physically attacked his senior but were separated by the Director with the assistance of other staff, in his office. 3. Following the above incident and the report, a show-cause-notice dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-I) was issued against Munindra Bharali (respondent No.8), under Rule 9 of the Assam Services Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Discipline Rules”) with the following statement of allegation :- “While Shri Munindra Bharali was serving as Assistant Research Officer in the Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam an incident of physically assaulting Sri Kamaleswar Roy, Research Officer of Directorate of Elementary Education and Nodal Officer of the Honourable Education Minister in the office chamber of the Director of Elementary Education on 21.02.2009 at about 6-00 pm was reported. Such act by a Government servant is unbecoming therefore, Munindra Bharali, Assistant Research Officer is liable for disciplinary action.” 4. In his reply dated 12.5.2009 (Annexure-J) to the show-cause-notice, the respondent No.8 denied the allegation of physical assault but admitted that there were altercation between him and the petitioner and also some physical contact but both were separated by the Director. According to the A.R.O, the allegations were exaggerated and should not lead to disciplinary proceeding. But for the lapses on his part, the A.R.O sought pardon and requested for exoneration. 5. The reply of the delinquent to the Charge Memo was considered and after due application of mind, the disciplinary authority decided to exonerate the delinquent with a stern warning to maintain a balanced temperament in future. With this order, the disciplinary proceeding was disposed of by the impugned order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure-K). 5. The reply of the delinquent to the Charge Memo was considered and after due application of mind, the disciplinary authority decided to exonerate the delinquent with a stern warning to maintain a balanced temperament in future. With this order, the disciplinary proceeding was disposed of by the impugned order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure-K). 6.1 The petitioner assails the legality of the impugned order by contending that when DP was started with the notice under Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules, the charges should have been enquired and only then the DP could have been concluded, either way. But exoneration of the delinquent without a formal enquiry, is contended to be legally impermissible. 6.2 Referring to the procedure laid down in Rule 9 for disciplinary action, Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel submits that when DP was initiated under Rule 9, the matter should have been processed as per the procedure specified in the Discipline Rules and it is therefore argued that the exoneration of the delinquent could not have been ordered, without a formal finding in a disciplinary inquiry. 6.3 The Senior Counsel projects that a criminal case was also registered against the respondent No.8 on account of the incident on 21.2.2009 and the trial in the criminal case is not yet concluded since the High Court reversed the acquittal finding and remanded the case for recording fresh evidence against the accused in the case. 7. On the other hand, Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department refers to the counter affidavit of the DEE and submits that altercation was admitted by the delinquent in his reply dated 12.5.2009 and since he apologized for his lapses for the incident on 21.2.2009, the disciplinary authority decided to close the chapter with a stern warning to the delinquent. The departmental lawyer submits that all the circumstances were taken into account before exonerating the delinquent. 8. The procedure framed under Rule 9 are to be followed mandatorily if punishment is proposed to be imposed under Rule 7 of the Discipline Rules. But when it is decided by the authority to not to punish the delinquent, to conduct a departmental enquiry would obviously be a futile exercise. 8. The procedure framed under Rule 9 are to be followed mandatorily if punishment is proposed to be imposed under Rule 7 of the Discipline Rules. But when it is decided by the authority to not to punish the delinquent, to conduct a departmental enquiry would obviously be a futile exercise. In my considered view only when a delinquent is proposed to be punished under Rule 7, the adherence to the procedural formalities under Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules is needed but such requirement cannot be insisted for a situation, where the delinquent is exonerated by the employer. 9. The steps indicated in Rule 9 are meant to protect a delinquent from being punished without a fair opportunity and insistence on adhering to the procedural requirement would hardly be justified when exoneration of the delinquent is proposed. 10. For the incident between the petitioner and the respondent No.8, the disciplinary authority decided to conclude the DP by exonerating the A.R.O and although the R.O was involved with the incident on 21.2.2009, as a witness, the petitioner cannot insist on how the disciplinary authority should deal with the situation since it is not prescribed in Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules that even for exoneration, a formal inquiry is necessary. The petitioner as a witness to the incident, cannot demand a formal enquiry into the charges only because, the DP was closed with acceptance of apology. Therefore, I find no infirmity with the impugned exoneration order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure-K) and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. However this order will not have any impact in the criminal trial stated to be pending against the respondent No.8. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above order, the case stands disposed of without any order on cost.