JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel representing all the respondents. 2. Petitioner assails the Order dated 26.04.2016 passed under the hand of the Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhemaji whereby she was dismissed from service in exercise of powers under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short the Rules). 3. Facts briefly are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Paschim Dhemaji Girls High School on 28.03.1988. Subsequently, her service was provincialised as Arts Graduate Teacher on 26.03.1996. Following a First Information Report lodged against her alleging that she had submitted forged academic certificates from Higher Secondary to Graduation for the purpose of obtaining appointment in the School, she was arrested and placed under suspension. The said FIR was registered as Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 138/2008, registered under Sections 420/468 IPC [corresponding to G.R. Case No. 308/2008 (DMJ)]. Judgment in the G.R. case was delivered on 17.02.2012 by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji acquitting the petitioner from the charges under Section 420/468 IPC after hot contest. In the said case the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents including 2 certificates in the name of the petitioner marked as Material Ext.1 and 2 respectively. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji reached a conclusive finding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges brought against the petitioner. 4. On 27.09.2013 the petitioner was served with the Show Cause Notice together with the Statement of Allegations. She was asked to show cause under Rule 9 of the Rules as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Clauses (i) to (ii) of Rule 7 of the Rules should not be inflicted on her on the following charges: "(i) That while you were the Asstt. Teacher of Paschim Dhemaji Girls High School, you are charged for the arrest of involving in different cases as raised by the investigating officer, Dhemaji Police Station, Dhemaji vide P.S. Case No. 138/08/U.S. 420/468 IPC Dtd. 8.8.2008. Therefore, you were charged for. (ii) While you were the Asstt. Teacher of Paschim Dhemaji Girls H.S., you had submitted false BA Pass certificates, Marksheet during the joining time at Paschim Dhemaji Girls H.S. Therefore, you are charged for. (iii) While you were the Asstt. 8.8.2008. Therefore, you were charged for. (ii) While you were the Asstt. Teacher of Paschim Dhemaji Girls H.S., you had submitted false BA Pass certificates, Marksheet during the joining time at Paschim Dhemaji Girls H.S. Therefore, you are charged for. (iii) While you were the Asstt. Teacher at Paschim Dhemaji Girls High School regarding your false BA Pass Certificates, a show cause reply was issued vide this office letter No. DDC/Prov/S.C./2007-08/1/1923 Dtd. 2nd May, 2008. But you did not reply at that time. Therefore, you are charge for non-submission of reply. (iv) During the suspension proposal, a letter was issued to the H/M of Paschim Dhemaji Girls High School whereby a copy was also issued to you for submission of the original BA pass certificate for verification of the same by the competent authority. But neither the HM of Paschim Dhemaji Girls High School (now retired) nor you, could not submit the Original documents to the undersigned on till date to-day. Therefore, you are charged for non-submission of original BA pass certificate. (v) While you are the Asstt. Teacher of Paschim Dhemaji Girls H.S., it assumed that you have violated the rules and procedures and lost the image of the Govt. and the Education Department. Therefore, you are charged for violation of disciplinary activities." 5. Petitioner made reply on 18.10.2013 by answering to each of the charges with prayer that she be exonerated of the charges brought against her. On 30.11.2013 the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. However, proceeding initiated vide Show Cause Notice and Statement of Allegations dated 27.09.2013 was taken forward. The impugned order of dismissal from service was issued by the Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhemaji on 26.04.2016. This is the order assailed in the present writ petition. 6. The scope of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in dealing with disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The impugned order of dismissal from service was issued by the Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhemaji on 26.04.2016. This is the order assailed in the present writ petition. 6. The scope of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in dealing with disciplinary proceedings is very limited. Apparently, in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court can only see, amongst others, whether any inquiry was held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf or whether there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings or whether the parties have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion or whether the conclusion arrived at by the authority on the very face of it, is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would ever have arrived at such conclusion or whether the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 7. In the instant case the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner was under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, which lays down the procedure for imposing penalties. Rule 9 envisages that no order imposing on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 shall be passed except after an inquiry. Definite charges are required to be framed, which has to be communicated to the government servant in writing allowing submission of written statement of defence. It also envisages that at the time of delivering the charges, the disciplinary authority must invariably furnish list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained. Rule 9 further provides that the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer. In the course of the inquiry the Inquiring Authority is to consider documentary evidence and also take oral evidence and permit the government servant to cross-examine witnesses. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority is to prepare a Report recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. The records of inquiry are to include the charges framed together with the statement of allegations; the written statement of defence, if any; the oral and documentary evidence taken in the course of the inquiry and a Report setting out the findings on each charge and reasons therefor. 8. The records of inquiry are to include the charges framed together with the statement of allegations; the written statement of defence, if any; the oral and documentary evidence taken in the course of the inquiry and a Report setting out the findings on each charge and reasons therefor. 8. As against the clear mandate regulating the procedure for imposing penalties prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules, the facts and materials on record gives a clear picture of wanton abuse of the prescribed procedure. Firstly, the Show Cause Notice and Statement of Allegations dated 27.09.2013 clearly indicates initiation of a proceeding under Rule 9 for imposition of penalty prescribed in Clauses (i) to (ii) of Rule 7 of the Rules, which pertains to imposition of penalty by way of censure and withholding of increments of promotion. In the instant case the decision finally reached by the disciplinary authority is dismissal of the petitioner from service, as provided under Clause (viii) of Rule 7. Besides, there is nothing on record to show that apart from the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations and allowing the petitioner to reply, any other procedure as statutorily provided under Rule 9 of the Rules were adhered to. In fact, although the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2013 shows the Assistant Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhemaji as the Inquiry Officer, there are no materials to show record of any proceedings before the said Inquiry Officer. Rather, the impugned order of dismissal dated 26.04.2016 shows that it was the Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhemaji and not the Assistant Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhemaji who held the so-called inquiry. It is seen that if at all any inquiry was held, which the records of the case do not at all show, by the disciplinary authority himself, the same was done without appointment of any Presenting Officer. There is no Inquiry Report brought on record by the respondent authority nor any material to show compliance of any of the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules. The fact that the petitioner was honourably acquitted from the charges under Section 420/468 IPC did not find consideration or discussion, either in the impugned Order dated 26.04.2016 or in any records of the so- called inquiry proceedings. 9. The fact that the petitioner was honourably acquitted from the charges under Section 420/468 IPC did not find consideration or discussion, either in the impugned Order dated 26.04.2016 or in any records of the so- called inquiry proceedings. 9. The statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to submit list of witnesses as well as list of documents, followed by strict adherence to the procedure of imposing penalties prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules has been blatantly violated. While imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service, no inquiry was held as per procedure. Neither the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of hearing. Records show that only the charges and reply submitted by the petitioner were taken into consideration while passing the impugned Order dated 26.04.2016. 10. The petitioner has made categorical statements at paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 26 of the writ petition stating that she was neither given any opportunity to participate in any inquiry proceeding nor was served any notice regarding initiation of departmental enquiry or called to participate in any inquiry at any point of time. Also, neither any list of documents nor list of witnesses were made available to her along with the show cause notice. No witnesses were examined, no Presenting Officer was appointed and no Enquiry Report was ever served upon her. These statements made on oath are not categorically controverted in the affidavit filed by the State Respondents. The stand of the respondent that the petitioner was given opportunity to participate in the enquiry as well as to inspect documents are not borne out of records. As regards the issue as to the circumstances under which the Inspector of Schools had inquired and concluded the disciplinary proceeding, it is stated at paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in- opposition to the effect that it was on account of the fact that the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools, DDC was lying vacant since 20.02.2004. As regards the judgment in the G.R. case, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner was acquitted on benefit of doubt. Be it stated that the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition do not at all inspire the confidence of this Court and the same have been made contrary to the records of the case. 11. This Court would refrain from going into the controversy regarding the BA Pass certificate of the petitioner. Be it stated that the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition do not at all inspire the confidence of this Court and the same have been made contrary to the records of the case. 11. This Court would refrain from going into the controversy regarding the BA Pass certificate of the petitioner. This Court is primarily concerned with the decision-making process by which the impugned order was arrived at. As noticed above, the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 while dismissing the petitioner from service vide impugned Order dated 26.04.2016. This aspect in itself is sufficient to conclude that the impugned order stood vitiated as mandatory procedure for imposing penalties was conveniently ignored. The order of dismissal dated 26.04.2016 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside, which is accordingly done. The petitioner shall now be deemed to have superannuated from service under normal circumstances without being impacted by any adverse order. On the setting aside of the order of dismissal dated 26.04.2016, the petitioner shall now be entitled to receive pension and other retirement benefits as may be due to her in accordance with law. Writ petition stands allowed.