JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education. 2. The petitioner is the Headmaster of the Rabidaspara Harijan M.V. School in Cachar district and the challenge here is to the order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-7), whereby the penalty of dropping one annual increment was imposed on the delinquent under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “Discipline Rules”). Under the same order, the Headmaster suspended on 07.07.2009 (Annexure-3), was reinstated, to his original post. 3.1 Assailing the impugned penalty, Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel submits that departmental enquiry was never conducted into the charge and thus no opportunity was afforded to the delinquent. On this basis, it is argued that the penalty was imposed in contravention of the procedure prescribed by Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules. 3.2 The petitioner contends that charges were not framed and enquiry was never conducted to facilitate the delinquent to defend the charges and accordingly it is argued that the petitioner was penalised without the opportunity to rebut the charges. 4. Pending drawal of departmental proceedings, the Headmaster of the M.V. School was placed under suspension on 07.07.2009 (Annexure-3) on the allegation that the delinquent did not allow the joining of the appointees, Fakrul Islam Laskar and Baharul Haque Laskar, in wilful subordination of the orders of his superiors. An appeal was filed by the delinquent against the suspension order and this Court on 03.08.2009 (Annexure-4) in the WP(C) No.3117/2009 had directed the authorities to decide the pending appeal dated 15.07.2009. Thereafter the speaking order was passed on 17.12.2009 (Annexure-5), whereby, the appeal was rejected by the Government and the DEE, Assam was directed to draw up the Departmental Proceeding, against the delinquent. 5. Thereafter the show-cause notice dated 01.06.2010 was issued under Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules proposing to inflict the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. The statement of allegation being relevant, is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “While Sri Jamal Uddin Laskar was serving as Head Master of Rabidaspara Harizon MV School, he defied as well as non-complied with the order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-09 in respect of allowing joining 2(two) new appointees viz. The statement of allegation being relevant, is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “While Sri Jamal Uddin Laskar was serving as Head Master of Rabidaspara Harizon MV School, he defied as well as non-complied with the order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-09 in respect of allowing joining 2(two) new appointees viz. Sri Fakrul Islam Laskar and Sri Baharul Haque Laskar against the appointment letters issued vide orders Memo No.EMA 63/2005/107 dt. 25/06/09 and EAA 135/2005/81 dt. 25/06/09 respectively. Therefore, he is charged with defying as well as non-complying the order of the authorities with malafide intention for his personal gain.” 6. The delinquent gave his reply but the disciplinary authority appointed the DEEO, Cachar as the Enquiry Officer in the proceeding. But it appears that no departmental enquiry was ever conducted. But nevertheless, the Enquiry Officer gave a report to the DEE on 27.07.2010 to the effect that the enquiry was concluded and the delinquent was found guilty of the charges. 7. However what emerges from the enquiry report annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the DEE, Assam is that, conclusions were drawn only on the basis of the response given by the delinquent to the show-cause notice dated 01.06.2010 but formal enquiry was never conducted into the charges. In fact, the impugned punishment order dated 12.08.2010 also, does not refer to any enquiry finding. 8. When any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 of the Discipline Rules are to be inflicted, the procedure for imposing penalties, are laid down in Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules. But the elaborate procedure for conducting the enquiry prescribed by Rule 9, was wholly overlooked by the authority. Thus this is a clear case of the delinquent being penalised, without adherence to the procedure laid down in the Discipline Rules. 9. That apart, since opportunity was denied to the delinquent, it is a clear case of the breach of the principles of natural justice. 10. It is well settled that penal action must not be taken without affording hearing to the affected party, but here the authorities have failed to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Rule 9 of the Discipline Rules and also denied due opportunity to the Headmaster. Thus I am of the considered opinion that penalisation of the delinquent under the impugned order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-7), is legally unsustainable. 11. Thus I am of the considered opinion that penalisation of the delinquent under the impugned order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-7), is legally unsustainable. 11. Following the above conclusion, the impugned penalty of dropping one annual increment against the delinquent is set aside and quashed. Thus all consequent reliefs are granted to the petitioner. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above order. No cost.