JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate and Mr. M. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents. 2. On 09.08.2018, this Court passed the following order: “Heard Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Phukan, the learned CGC appearing for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service vide office order dated 03.05.2008 (Annexure-F). Prior to his removal, the petitioner was appointed under the 1st Battalion of the CRP. Thereafter, he was transferred to 65 Battalion of the CRPF. Be it stated herein that, the appointment was secured by the petitioner in terms of the Central Scheme for brining militants who have come over ground to the mainstream. 3. The appeal and thereafter, the review petition filed by the petitioner were both rejected and having no alternative, the petitioner is before this Court through this present writ petition. 4. Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceedings is vitiated inasmuch as proper opportunity was not granted to the petitioner such as the statement of allegations, list of documents and including the enquiry report. Importantly, he submits that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the respondent authorities while drawing up the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 5. Mr. M. Phukan, the learned CGC on the other hand submits that the records reveal that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity and that all the documents relied upon by the Department during the enquiry were in fact supplied to the petitioner. 6. However, it is seen that the departmental records as produced by the learned CGC is in vernacular language (Hindi). Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to peruse the same. 7. During the course of the argument, the learned CGC submits that a number of cases filed against the Union of India alleging vitiation of enquiry proceedings for non appointment of Presenting Officer were allowed by the High Court. However, the Union of India has preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the Apex Court while granting leave stayed the judgment and order of the High Court. However, the Union of India has preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the Apex Court while granting leave stayed the judgment and order of the High Court. In this connection, he has produced a copy of the order dated 22.02.2012 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7363/2011 (Union of India & Ors. Mutum Santikumar Singh). He however submits that he has no up-to-date instructions on the fate of the appeal filed by Union of India. 8. Considering the submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that the case be deferred so that the learned CGC Mr. Phukan can obtain up-to-date instructions on the appeal/appeals pending before the Apex Court as referred to above. Further, the learned CGC shall also get the relevant portion of the records translated into English. The documents to be translated are the documents in support of which, the statements at paragraphs 7, 16, 19, 22, and 24 has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 dated 30.04.2013, 9. The case shall now be listed again on 18.09.2018 as a part-heard item. 10. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. M. Phukan, the learned CGC for doing the needful.” 3. Subsequently, the matter was again listed on 18.09.2018 wherein the learned CGC submitted that translation of the relevant documents could not be completed. Therefore, further time was granted to the learned CGC. Today, Mr. M. Phukan submits that although he has received the translation of the required documents, the same however again is not complete. In so far as the case of Union of India and Others v. Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh registered as Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2012 is concerned, he has produced a copy of the order dated 08.06.2018 by which the aforesaid case was dismissed by the Apex Court. The learned CGC submits that the Apex Court has not decided the case on merit but has only declined to interfere in the matter in view of the fact that the writ petitioner concerned on his reinstatement has been working for the last six years. 4. Mr. The learned CGC submits that the Apex Court has not decided the case on merit but has only declined to interfere in the matter in view of the fact that the writ petitioner concerned on his reinstatement has been working for the last six years. 4. Mr. M. Phukan further submits that in the case of Union of India and Others v. Ram Lakhan Sarma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670 , the Apex Court has held that even if the appointment of the Presenting Officer has not been provided in the Service Rules, the same should be read into the Rules to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. The above decision of the Apex Court was relied upon by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devender Kumar v. Union of India and Others which was registered as WP(C) 573/2012 and decided on 24.01.2019. In view of the Apex Court’s decision, the orders impugned in the writ petition were set aside and the petitioner reinstated back into service while granting liberty to the authorities to conduct de novo enquiry from the stage of appointing a Presenting Officer. He therefore submits that a similar direction in the present case may be passed by this Court. 5. Considering the above submissions and also the law laid down by the Apex Court, further consideration of the writ petition and awaiting translated copies of the documents concerned is found un-necessary. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.05.2008 (Annexure-F), the impugned Appellate order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure-G) and the impugned Review order dated 11.07.2009 (Annexure-I) are hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated back into service and the Respondent Authorities are granted liberty to initiate fresh de novo proceedings against the petitioner as per law if so advised within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copies of this order. On his reinstatement, the period for which the petitioner was removed from service shall be treated as the period spent under suspension. Entitlements to other benefits will be governed by the outcome of the de novo enquiry. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.