JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent SSA. 2. The petitioner who was serving as a District Program Officer (Sub Training) in the Tinsukia district was issued a show-cause notice dated 01.10.2013 by the Mission Director. 3. From the show-cause notice, it is discernible that the Mission Director was of the view that the petitioner was fully aware of the incident of sexual harassment and misdeeds committed by the Centre Coordinator Pradip Saikia. Further when the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Cum DMC of Dibrugarh had visited the Residential Sub-Training Centre Girls RSTC at Naharkati on 04.09.2013, the petitioner who was also present along with him had refrained from divulging the incident as regards the sexual harassment of the girls. 4. Based upon the aforesaid charge, the show-cause notice was issued as to why disciplinary action will not be initiated against the petitioner. In reply to the same, the petitioner submitted his show-cause reply on 10.10.2013, wherein in paragraph-4 he states that being the DPO, his prime responsibility was to ensure supply of good food and to maintain good and healthy environment in the centre. In paragraph 5, it was also stated that the petitioner had never received any complaint as regards any sexual harassment by any official or other person in respect of the RSTC at Naharkatia. 5. Based on the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 01.10.2013 and the reply of the petitioner dated 10.10.2013, the petitioner was terminated from service by the order dated 30.12.2013. The order of termination is being assailed in this writ petition. 6. A perusal of the order of termination reveals that the reason as to why the petitioner was terminated from service was that he was totally silent about the incident and had not apprised the matter to the competent authority. It is also taken note of that the petitioner was terminated by invoking the power under Clause-5 and 6 of the deed of agreement by which he was appointed. It is also taken note of that the petitioner was terminated by invoking the power under Clause-5 and 6 of the deed of agreement by which he was appointed. It is further taken note of that that show-cause notice of 01.10.2013 required the petitioner to show-cause as to why the disciplinary action will not be initiated against the petitioner meaning thereby, that upon receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the authorities will take a decision as to whether any disciplinary proceeding resulting in an action would be initiated against the petitioner. 7. In order to justify the order of termination against the petitioner, the respondent SSA relies upon an enquiry report submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and District Mission Coordinator (ADC) cum DMC (District Mission Coordinator)of Dibrugarh dated 19.09.2013. Firstly, it is taken note of that the show-cause is dated 01.10.2013 and the enquiry report dated 19.09.2013 meaning thereby, that after the show-cause notice and the reply of the petitioner, no enquiry of any kind was held. At the best, the enquiry report of 19.09.2013 can be construed to be a preliminary enquiry. In other words, the petitioner stood terminated on the basis of a preliminary enquiry without making any further enquiry which itself is against the requirement of the law of disciplinary proceeding to be initiated against any person. 8. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the incident of sexual harassment was firstly revealed by the concerned six girls to one Dimpi Mech Gogoi and Anima Konwar, who happened to be the care taker and attendant of the RSTC respectively. The enquiry report further reveals that after the incident of sexual harassment was reported by the six girls to the care taker on 19.08.2013, a meeting of the staff of the centre was arranged in the presence of the six girls on 02.09.2013 and in the said meeting, the Coordinator Pradip Saikia against whom sexual harassment charges were leveled had sought for forgiveness for his mistake which again was declined. The report further states that on 04.09.2013 when the ADC cum DMC had visited the RSTC accompanied by the petitioner Ratul Saikia, the petitioner had not informed him about the incident. The report further states that on 04.09.2013 when the ADC cum DMC had visited the RSTC accompanied by the petitioner Ratul Saikia, the petitioner had not informed him about the incident. If the incident of sexual harassment was revealed to the care taker on 19.08.2013 and there was an urgent meeting of the staff on 02.09.2013 and the ADC had visited the RSTC on 04.09.2013 no question has been raised as to why the caretaker who atleast was in knowledge of the incident had not reported it to the ADC on the said date. 9. Without going into the question, the ADC cum DMC appears to be in a haste to put the blame on the petitioner for not having reported the incident without there being any conclusive material that the petitioner was also aware of the incident as on 04.09..2013. 10. To that extent, the respondent in the SSA refers to a purported statement to have been recorded by the ADC cum DMC amongst others of the care taker Dimpi Mech Gogoi who is alleged to have stated that she had not disclosed about the incident earlier out of fear as because the accused Pradip Saikia had threatened her with dire consequence. But she stated that the petitioner Ratul Sakika had called her over phone and advised her to settled the matter amicably with the accused. Even the said statement is vague to the extent that nothing has been stated as to when the petitioner had made the phone call and if he had actually made so, why the said incident was not reported by the caretaker to the ADC on 04.09.2013,more so, in the background that there is no allegation of any threat by the petitioner upon the said Dimpi Mech gogoi. 11. From the aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondents in the SSA, it is more convincing that the authorities were more interested to show that some action had been taken against someone in the backdrop of the allegation of sexual harassment, rather than to make a more detailed enquiry and take appropriate action against the concerned person. 11. From the aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondents in the SSA, it is more convincing that the authorities were more interested to show that some action had been taken against someone in the backdrop of the allegation of sexual harassment, rather than to make a more detailed enquiry and take appropriate action against the concerned person. When prima facie the caretaker Dipmi Mech Gogoi in-spite of having the knowledge had not disclosed the incident and the entire allegation against the petitioner is based on one statement of the said Dimpi Mech that he had called her over phone and advised a settlement of the matter, it will be difficult not only to proceed against the petitioner but also to sustain the order of termination against him merely on a casual statement of Dimpi Mech gogoi. 12. It is further taken note of that the said Dimpi Mech Gogoi was even not allowed to be cross examined by the petitioner at any stage nor there is any mention about her in the show cause notice dated 01.10.2013. Further it is taken note of that the petitioner was terminated from service by invoking the powers under Clause 5 and 6 of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Clause 5 pertains to unsatisfactory performance of duty and breach of term of the agreement. We do not find any allegation made against the petitioner that his duty was unsatisfactory or that he had violated any terms of the agreement. As regards Clause -6, a termination can be made by giving notice of 30 days in advance or otherwise in the event of any mis-conduct misreporting or misappropriation of SSA fund or negligence in duty a termination can be effected without giving the required one month notice. In the instant case, we do not find any material to support a termination under Clause 6 inasmuch as, there is no conclusion against the petitioner of there being any misconduct, mis-reporting or misappropriation of SSA fund or in respect of negligence of any duty. 13. Considering the aspect as indicated above, more particularly the procedure which was adopted by the respondent SSA, to terminate the service of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the order of termination is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. 13. Considering the aspect as indicated above, more particularly the procedure which was adopted by the respondent SSA, to terminate the service of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the order of termination is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. The respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per law, if so advised. Writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.