JUDGMENT : 1. This is a writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside the Inquiry Report dated 08.12.2016, submitted against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer and also praying for issuing of appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 3 and 4 to institute a denovo proceeding. 2. By an order dated 21.05.2012, the petitioner who was appointed as Grade-IV employee (Safi Karmachari) in the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the Mahavidyalaya was suspended from his service pending departmental proceedings. On 23.08.2012 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. The charges against the petitioner as given in the charge sheet are as follows (reproduced verbatim); “(1) That while you were serving as safai/grade IV employee of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, you were allowed to reside in the Grade IV quarter of the College. You were asked to vacate the residence occupied by you for the following reasons, vide our Office letter NAM/Adm/953/2011 dated 24-2-11. (a) College authority decided to allot the said Grade IV quarter of the college to the college Night Chowkidar after reconstruction of the same. (b) Your wife has been found being involved in screaming and quarrelling with college employees as a result of which the congenial atmosphere in the college is disturbed. But you have not obeyed the authority’s order to vacate the residence. You have not obeyed the authority’ order even after subsequent reminders vide our office letters No. NAM/HOM/991/2011, dtd 02-6-11 and No. NAM/Pani/VCT/1005/2011, td 12-8-11. Hence you are charged with defiance of authority’s order. (2) While you were asked to vacate the residence vide office letters mentioned above, you have not only not carried out the authority‘s order but also did not show any response to give reply to the letters mentioned above. Hence you are charged with humiliation and disobedience of authority. (3) That being an employee of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, you have not co operated with the authority concerned but acted against the interests of the college by assaulting college employees, namely, Sri Amulya Chaudhury, O/A, Sri Bhabesh Kalita, grade IV employee and Monoj Kumar Bhuyan, Library bearer and a person Sri Bimal Deka by the name who was supervising the earth filling in the college campus on behalf of the contractor engaged for earth filling work without any reason in front of the Principal i/c, the Vice Principal etc. Hence you are charged with obstructing development work of the college and assaulting of employees and other. (4) That being a full time employees of the college, you were found to be engaged yourself in other places during the college hour. As a result of this act you dual activities, the college has been suffering badly. It has been found that you attend the college hardly for half an hour and served only the duty of safai employee. After this, the college did not find you in the college for work of the grade IV employee. In this regard you were served a notice vide office letter No. NAM/And/954/2011 dated 24-2-11 besides asking you verbally to perform the duties of grade IV duties. But you have not rectified yourself despite assurance. Hence you are charged with severe negligence of duty. (5) That being a full time employee of the college, you were found to be engaged yourself in other places during college hour. Due to this of your dual activities, the college has been suffering badly. Hence you are charged with fraudulence. You should submit you written statement in defence within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this communication provided you do not intend to inspect those documents which have relevance with the issues under enquiry. In case you intend to inspect those documents you should write to the undersigned for the same within seven days from the date of receipt of this communication and submit your explanation thereafter within 10 (ten) days from the date of completion of the inspection. Your written statement stating whether you desire to be heard in person should be submitted to the undersigned within the period specified above”. 3. The petitioner was also served with statement of allegations along with the charge sheet. Your written statement stating whether you desire to be heard in person should be submitted to the undersigned within the period specified above”. 3. The petitioner was also served with statement of allegations along with the charge sheet. The relevant portion of the same is also reproduced here below verbatim; “(1) While you have been residing in the grade IV quarter of the college, the college authority asked you to vacate the grade IV quarter within one month from the date of receipt of the letter (No. NAM/Adm/953/2011, dated 24-2-11 due to (a) college authority’s decision to allot the said grade IV quarter to the Night Chowkidar after its reconstruction and (b) your wife is often found screaming and quarrelling with other employees of the college with her loud voice and as the quarter is located within the college campus so the congenial atmosphere of the college is hampered. In this regard you were reminded by the Principal i/c vide letters No. BAM/HOM/VCT/991/2011, dated 02-6-11 and letter No. NAM/PANI/VCT/1005/2011, dated 12-8-11. But it is found that you have neither carried out the authority’s order, nor communicated with the authority in any manner in this regard. (1) While you were asked to vacate the grade IV quarter of the college by our three consecutive letters, cited above, you did not respond to the authority’ letter which you have ought to have done. This amounts to a humiliation of the authority whom you should respect. (2) While you are an employee of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, you should co operate with the authority in all activities relating to college development. But it is found that you have acted against the interest of the institution. It is to be mentioned that while earth filling the college campus was going on, you have assaulted three college employees, namely, Sri Amulya Chaudhury, O/A. Sri Bhabesh Kalita, grade IV employee and Sri Manoj Bhuyan, library bearer and another person named Bima Deka who was supervising the work of earth filling. You have committed this crime in front of the Principal i/c, the Vice Principal and some members of the teaching staff of the college. (3) That you were a full time employee of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, with duties of safai Karmi/ Grade IV employee. You have committed this crime in front of the Principal i/c, the Vice Principal and some members of the teaching staff of the college. (3) That you were a full time employee of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, with duties of safai Karmi/ Grade IV employee. But it is found that after doing the safai work in about half an hour in the morning you are not found in the college campus for performing other duties. You are found to be engaged yourself in other establishment during the college hour as a full time employee of the college you cannot play a dual role which hampers the normal functioning of the college. Again it has adverse demonstrative effects of other employees of the institution. This is an act of fraudulence. (B) List of witness Documentary (1) Letter No. NAM/And/954/2011; dtd 24-2-11 asking you to perform the duties of grade IV. (2) Letter NAM/Adm/953/2011, dated 24-2-11 asking you to vacate college house (Grade IV Quarter) (3) Letters No. NAM/HOM/VCT/1991/2011, dated 02-6-11 and (4) Letter No. NAM/PANI/VCT/1005/2011, dated 12-811. Persons 1. Sri Mrinal Medhi, Vice Principal 2. Sri Amulya Chaudhury, O/A 3. Sri Putul Kra, grade IV employee 4. Sri Bhabesh Kalita, Grade IV employee 5. Sri. Hriday Chaudhury. Grade IV employee 6. Sri Manoj Bhuyan. Library bearer”. 4. After receiving the charge sheet and the statement of allegations as stated above the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges against him. On 27.10.2012 the petitioner was informed by one Mr. Satish Chandra Sarmah who was appointed as Inquiry Officer that his reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority, therefore, he is asked to appear in person before the enquiry officer on 3rd Nov.2012, at 11 a.m. positively at the Chamber of the Principal of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya for recording his statements. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on the dates fixed for the purpose. During the enquiry the statement of the petitioner and statements of eight witnesses were recorded. After the completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 08.12.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on the dates fixed for the purpose. During the enquiry the statement of the petitioner and statements of eight witnesses were recorded. After the completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 08.12.2015. The findings of the Inquiry Officer and his recommendation as given in the Inquiry Report are reproduced here below (reproduced Verbatim); “INQUIRY REPORT Findings: On careful consideration of the investigation made by the undersigned and on the basis of the statements made by the complainants and eye witnesses the following findings have been recorded on each charge. On the basis of the findings the disciplinary authority i.e., G.B. of the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya will take necessary steps imposing punishment on the accused Sri Paniram Das, the Gr. IV cum safai karmi of the Mahavidyalaya as per rule 7 under “ The Assam Service ( Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1964”. Charge No.1:-In this charge the Disciplinary authority has charged with “defiance of authority’s order”. According to this charge Sri Paniram Das was asked to vacate the residence which was allotted to him by the college authority on the ground that – (a) The house will be reconstructed and will be allotted to the Night Chowkidar of the College. (b) The congenial atmosphere of the college has been disturbed due to the involvement of the wife of Sri Paniram Das in screaming and quarrelling with the college employees. Sri Paniram Das did not pay had to it rather claimed that the plot of land where he reside in a shed-house belongs to his wife which was donated by her father at the time of their marriage (as per his verbal statement). Buy in the written statement Sri Paniram Das stated that the disputed land was purchased by his wife from Sri Biren Baruah. This statement is self contradictory. As per above statement of Sri Paniram Das and all the witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the I.O., have vehemently opposed the matter and stated that the disputed house along with the land belongs to the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya. It is more interesting that Sri Paniram Das gave witness under the Civil case No. 207/2005 on 06/09/2009 and stated in an affidavit that the disputed land belongs to the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya and it is under the possession of the college since 1991. It is more interesting that Sri Paniram Das gave witness under the Civil case No. 207/2005 on 06/09/2009 and stated in an affidavit that the disputed land belongs to the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya and it is under the possession of the college since 1991. Moreover the said land dispute has been settled in the floor of the Hon’ble Munsiff Court, Guahati and the Hon’ble court has recently ordered in favour of the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya. Vide their order dated 24th September, 2015 under the Title Suit No. 281/2012 (Annexure-XX). Hence Charge No.1: (a) leveled against Sri Paniram Das has been proved. Of course the charge No. 1 (b) the quarrelling nature of Paniram Das’s wife could not be proved due to in sufficient proof. Charge No.2: By this charge Sri Paniram Das was charged with humiliation and disobedience of authority as he and not shown any response to the authority letter stated in charge No.1. In his reply to it Sri Paniram Das in the written reply stated that as the matter was pending in the court of law, so he did not give any reply to it. But in his verbal statement recorded in front of the I.O., he stated that he did not feel necessity to respond the authority’s letter as the disputed land belong to his wife. As it has already been settled that the land belongs to the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, so the contradictory statement of Sri Paniram Das has no any value, however it was the responsibility of Sri Paniram Das to respond his appointing authority’s letter. This charge has also been proved. Charge No.3: According to this charge Sri Paniram Das acted against the interest of the college and assaulted some employees of the college whose statements have been recorded and he has been charged with “obstruction of the developmental work and assaulting of employees of the Mahavidyalaya”. In his defence Sri Paniram Das denied the charge and stated it “quite baseless and fabricated”. But the statements of eye witness goes against Sri Das and the charge is proved. Sri Das could not stated any witness for his defence in this regard. In his defence Sri Paniram Das denied the charge and stated it “quite baseless and fabricated”. But the statements of eye witness goes against Sri Das and the charge is proved. Sri Das could not stated any witness for his defence in this regard. Charge No. 4: Through this charge Sri Paniram Das was Charged with negligence of duty.” Though in his written reply Sri Paniram Das has denied his irregularities in attending his duty, in his physical appearance Sri Das confessed before the I.O. the allegation and beg pardon to the Principal I/C. in his written reply to the Principals instruction dated 24/2/11 (Annexure IX), but he failed to do so, hence the charge may be treated as proved. Charged No. 5: Under this charge Sri Paniram Das was charged with fraudulence. He is alleged to be engaged him self in some place during the college hour. This charge could not be proved due to non-co-operation of the establishment where he has been apprehended to be engaged. Suggestion:- After careful consideration the underd signed has stated that most of the charges leveled against Sri Paniram Das has been proved. Now the disciplinary authority may inflict one of the punishment stated under the Rule 7 of Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 as feels deem fit and proper. The Rule has been quoted below for ready reference of the authority. Nature of Penalties:- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- (i) Censure, (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders to the Govt. of Assam or the Central Government or any State Government or ay local authority to whom services of a Government servant had been lent, (iv) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale. (v) Compulsory retirement, vi) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. vii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a, disqualification for future employment”. Of the above penalties the first three penalties are termed as minor and the others are major penalties. Submitted and handed over to the Principal i/c of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya on this day of 8th December, 2015”. 5. vii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a, disqualification for future employment”. Of the above penalties the first three penalties are termed as minor and the others are major penalties. Submitted and handed over to the Principal i/c of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya on this day of 8th December, 2015”. 5. After the Inquiry Report was submitted the petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 21.01.2016, and in pursuance thereof the petitioner submitted his reply on 13.02.2016. On 29.03.2016, the petitioner was informed by the Principle/In-charge Secretary of Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya that his reply to the show cause notice has been rejected and, in consequence, he has been removed from service with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the Inquiry Report and his removal from service the petitioner has come before this court assailing the same on the following grounds; “Grounds (reproduced Verbatim as given in the writ petition) I. For that a perusal of the Inquiry Report dated 08.12.2015 would go to show that same has been made without complying with the basic tenets and principle of Disciplinary and Enquiry Proceedings and such same is bad is law and liable to be interfered with. II. For that a perusal of the Report would go to show that adequate opportunity was not given to the defence to put forth his case and as such the Inquiry Report is liable to be quashed and set aside. III. For that a perusal of the Report would reveal that charges framed against were not sufficiently proved and even if so proved they were proved by motivated witness and such the Report is liable to be quashed and interfered with. IV. For that the Inquiry Officer ought to have granted permission for aid and assistance from a person well versed in Disciplinary and Enquiry proceedings to plead the Petitioner’s case in as much it is the mandate of the Rules of 1964 that the Government Servant may present his case with aid and assistance of any other Government Servant. It is relevant the vital right of the Petitioner before the trial has jeopardize the right of fair trial and as such the same has vitiated the trial and the entire proceedings is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. It is relevant the vital right of the Petitioner before the trial has jeopardize the right of fair trial and as such the same has vitiated the trial and the entire proceedings is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. V. For that it is a trite principle of law that the evidence of witness cannot be relied upon until and unless they are subjected to cross examination. It is pertinent to mention that the witnesses who deposed before the Inquiry authority were not subjected to cross examination therefore the veracity of their deposition is yet to be challenged and as such to base the Report upon such unreliable evidence is illegal and bad in law. VI. For that a careful reading of the Report would reveal that the whole proceeding is devoid of independent witness. It is relevant to mention that the allegations and charges were proved by the witnesses who are the employees of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and as such the Report is liable to be interfered with. At this stage, the Plaintiff reserves its right to make further appropriate submission as when necessary. VII. For that one of the basic principles of Disciplinary Enquiry proceedings is that it bounden duty of the Inquiry Officer to enlighten the Government Servant with his rights before the trial and regarding accessibility to documents. VIII. For that the Respondent No. 5 failed to comply with the mandate of the Rules of 1964 and non compliance of the prescribed rules thereof has jeopardize the right of fair trial and interest of the Petitioner and as such the Report is bad in law for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and the same is liable to be quashed and interfered with. The petitioner reserves its right to urge upon additional ground at the stage of hearing”. 6. The respondent No. 2 & 3 filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition and raised preliminary objection against the writ petition. The Preliminary objection as given at para-3 of the affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced here below; “That before going to give Para wise reply of the aforesaid Writ Petition your deponent has made a preliminary objection of this instant Writ Petition on the following grounds:- That a petitioner who was working as a Safai Karmi/Grade IV employee was placed under suspension on 21.05.2012 pending Departmental Proceedings. Subsequently thereafter on 23.08.2012 show cause notice under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India along with statement of allegation was also served, and thus a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. But during the pendency of the aforesaid Departmental Proceeding, the Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya was brought under provincialization w.e.f. 1.01.2013 under the Provision of the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011 by and order issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam on 20.01.2014. Though the name of the petitioner was recommended for provincialization as a Grade IV employee under the said Act of 2011, but he was found disqualified as an “excess post’’ and, as such , Petitioner service was not provicialized under the said 2011 Act and he remain as a Non Govt. employee. Further as per existing Acts and Rules Petitioner has no future scope for provincialization of his services. In the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above Petitioner’s claim cannot be considered in this Writ Proceeding and thus the said is liable to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court.”. 7. I have heard both the learned counsel representing the parties, Mr. K. Singha on behalf of petitioner and Mr. A.K Sharma on behalf of the respondents No. 3 & 4 and Mr. K. Gogoi on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was neither informed of his right to be assisted by a person nor was he provided with the same, as such, the enquiry proceeding was vitiated and violative of Rule-9(5) of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964. The learned counsel also submitted that since no assistance was provided to the petitioner the witnesses were not cross examined, therefore, the statements of the witnesses could not have been relied upon. In support of his submission the learned counsel cited the concluding part of Para 6 of the judgement passed by this court in the case of T.S. Srivastva Vs. State Of Assam & Ors., reported in AIR 1972 Gauhati 2 (V. 59 C 2). The relevant portion cited by the learned counsel is reproduces here below; “The procedure laid down under Rule 9 is a mandatory procedure and any violation of the rule will vitiate the enquiry. State Of Assam & Ors., reported in AIR 1972 Gauhati 2 (V. 59 C 2). The relevant portion cited by the learned counsel is reproduces here below; “The procedure laid down under Rule 9 is a mandatory procedure and any violation of the rule will vitiate the enquiry. These rules have been made in order to ensure security of the service and cannot be allowed to be by-passed or observed in a casual and mechanical way. These are not merely ceremonial adornment in print but are meant to be properly and positively observed.” The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 4 by referring to para-3 of the affidavit in opposition contents of which has been already reproduced at para-6 of this judgment submitted that the petitioner was never a Government servant, therefore, the jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of The Constitution cannot be invoked. The learned counsel then referred to the order dated 20th January, 2014, issued by the Director, Higher Education, Assam vide his office memo No. PC/HE/VEN.EDNL.(77)/1/2014/44, wherein the names of the employees of the college who where provincialised and not provincialised are given and submitted that against the name of the petitioner the remark given was not provincialised as the post held by him was in excess, this shows that he never was a government servant. The learned counsel further submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents at para-3 of their affidavit in opposition has not been denied or opposed by the petitioner, therefore, it has to be assumed that he has accepted the same as per Rule-5 of Order VI of Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel also submitted that even by assuming that the petitioner was a government servant, as per Rule-9(5) of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (1964), he should have asked for assistance of a government servant. Since, he did not ask for it the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority was not under obligation to provide the same. The learned counsel, in support of his submission cited para-24, 25 and 26 of the judgement of this High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Sharma –Vs-State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) GLT 537. Since, he did not ask for it the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority was not under obligation to provide the same. The learned counsel, in support of his submission cited para-24, 25 and 26 of the judgement of this High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Sharma –Vs-State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) GLT 537. The contents of the three paragraphs of the judgement are reproduced here below; “(24) In the case before us, no prayer was made by the writ petitioner to take assistance of any government servant/officer. His pointed request was to allow him to engage a lawyer. Rule 9 (5) does not require critical analysis. In our opinion, it is mandatory to the extent a delinquent requests the disciplinary authority to allow him to take assistance of any other Govt. servant and if any such permission is sought for, the authority us obliged to accept the prayer. However, the 2nd part of Rule 9 (5) gives discretion to the disciplinary authority to accede to the prayer of a delinquent to engage a legal practitioner. This view can be ascertained from various authorities that are being discussed in the judgement later. (25) Apparently and admittedly the department also did not engage any lawyer to present the case before the Enquiry Officer. The law in this regard is well settled. We are also of the opinion that since the petitioner himself was a judicial officer, he was familiar with the necessities of cross-examination of witnesses and given evidence. The allegations and charges did not involve any technical issue so as to take a view that the petitioner was prejudiced for not being allowed to engage a council. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, given in the case of C.L. Subramaniam (supra), and relied upon by the learned council for the petitioner that: “When a man is charged with the breach of a rule entailing serious consequences, he is not likely to be in a position to present his case as best as it should be ” Has to be understood in the background of the allegations, charges and the status of the delinquent. Be that as it may, it is not a universal rule in this service jurisprudence that it is mandatory for the Disciplinary Authority to accept the prayer of delinquents to be provided with legal assistance and, in-fact, the Disciplinary Rules has not mandated so. This view can be gathered from the judgement of Apex Court in the case of D.G., Railway Protection Force Vs. K. Raghuram Babu, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 406 . The relevant observations of the Apex Court can profitably be quoted below: “11. Following the above decision it has to be held that there is no vested or absolute right in any charge-sheeted employee to representation either through a counsel or through any other person unless the statute or rules/standing orders provide for such a right. Moreover, the right to representation through someone, even if granted by rules, can be granted as a restricted or controlled right. Refusal to grant representation through an agent does not violate the principles of Natural Justice” (26) In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. S.K. Dutt Sharma, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 61 the delinquent also made a prayer for allowing him to engage a lawyer on the ground that the departmental nominee was a person in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and he had also worked as Prosecuting Inspector for a number of years. However, the prayer was turned down by the disciplinary authority as well as by a single judge of the High Court. But, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of removal from service. Hence, the State filled the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The apex Court restored the removal order holding that the petitioner (a State Civil Service Officer) was found to a person well versed in Law as well as in Legal decisions and he had effectively cross-examined the witnesses. Accordingly, it was held that the delinquent did not suffer any prejudice on account of refusal on the part of the authority to engage a legal practitioner. ” 8. I have considered the pleadings of the parties and the submissions of the learned counsels. Accordingly, it was held that the delinquent did not suffer any prejudice on account of refusal on the part of the authority to engage a legal practitioner. ” 8. I have considered the pleadings of the parties and the submissions of the learned counsels. Since the petition is under Article 226 of the constitution of India the first requirement the petitioner must meet is that the order and direction as prayed for can be issued or passed by this Court against the main respondent, under the provisions of the same Article. For easy reference the contents of (1) & (2) of Article 226 are reproduced here below; “Article 226 of the Constitution (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other purpose]. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories”. From the Language of the Article and from the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in a number of cases it can be stated without any doubt that ordinarily, a writ will lie against the State, statutory bodies and persons charged with public duties. The word state would be as defined under Article 12 of the constitution which includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Therefore, the petitioner should have shown in his pleadings that his employer who dismissed him from service belongs to any of the state machineries or authorities or body of individuals at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioner should have shown in his pleadings that his employer who dismissed him from service belongs to any of the state machineries or authorities or body of individuals at the relevant time. However, on careful perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner in the writ petition I do not find even a whisper having been made as to which of the machineries of the state or authorities, local bodies or body of individuals, against whom writ would lie, the respondent employer who dismissed the petitioner belongs to. The petition is totally silent on the same. However, what can be made out from the pleadings is that the College was not Government College at the relevant time. Further, the petition is also silent under what statute the employer of the petitioner is bound to act as alleged in the petition. There is also no mention of any order or authority by which the employer (respondent) of the petitioner was empowered or under obligation or bound to follow the provisions of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (1964). In the absence of such pleadings in the petition and supporting evidence it is not possible for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.