JUDGMENT U J Saikia, J. - Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC). 2. The petitioner who was serving as a Survey Mondol under the respondent council was issued a show cause notice dated 15.06.2013 under Section 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India on the following charges:- wxyz 1. You have forged and fabricated the official order Memo No.KAAC/Rev/508/346(A) dated 01/03/2011 and inserted the names of 17 persons whose names had not seen approved for settlement. zyxw wxyz 2. You have inserted the names of 17 persons for settlement who had not even applied V-Form as required. zyxw wxyz 3. You have misguided your Senior Officer intentionally. zyxw wxyz 4. You are also charged for tampering the official records by forging original documents. zyxw 3. In the reply dated 27.06.2013 to the show cause notice, the petitioner admitted the charges and stated as follows:- wxyz But, unfortunately my thought changed due to some known or unknown reasons and I tried to ear more money by any means. I also swyed away in the showmanship of this modern world. Hence, I was tempted into this life of crime by graced. zyxw wxyz And now I repent the crime of committed and confess all the charges leveled against me. I confess honestly that:- zyxw wxyz (1) I forged and fabricated the official order Memo No. KAAC/Rev./508/346(A) Dated:- -1/03/2011 and inserted the names of 17 persons whose names were not approved for settlement. zyxw wxyz (2) I also confess that I inserted all the 17 persons name for settlement who had not even approved V-Form as required. zyxw wxyz (3) I confess that in doing so unknowingly some Senior Officer were misguided. zyxw wxyz (4) I also confess that some original official documents were tampered with. zyxw wxyz In the resultant situation, the enquiry officer submitted an enquiry report dated 18.09.2013. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer took note that the charge against the petitioner was that he had forged and fabricated the final order memo No.KAC/Rev/450/346 dated 01.09.2011 and inserted the names of 17 persons whose names were not approved for settlement. zyxw wxyz In the resultant situation, the enquiry officer submitted an enquiry report dated 18.09.2013. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer took note that the charge against the petitioner was that he had forged and fabricated the final order memo No.KAC/Rev/450/346 dated 01.09.2011 and inserted the names of 17 persons whose names were not approved for settlement. In paragraph-2 of the enquiry, it was stated that the petitioner had prepared the Annual patta in the name of Boleswar Chouhan and 16 others, although the persons concerned had not applied V- Form as required. In paragraph-3 of the report, it was stated that the petitioner had misguided the senior officer intentionally and prepared the 17 numbers of pattas without any order. In paragraph-4, the enquiry officer stated that he had examined the original document and found the names of 17 persons headed by Boleswar Chouhan was not placed in the L.S.A.B meeting. The report also took note of the admission by the petitioner that he had confessed that he had forged and fabricated the materials. Based upon the enquiry report, the order of termination dated 27.03.2015 was issued. zyxw 4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination of 27.03.2015, the writ petition is instituted. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition is that before the order of termination was issued, the enquiry report was not submitted to the petitioner as required under the law. We have noticed that in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that when he went to the office of the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council to collect the documents that may have been forged and fabricated, he had personally met the Joint Secretary. He also stated that being a simple and honest person he had verbally stated before the Joint Secretary that he had not committed any offence nor he had fabricated any document. But it is specifically stated in paragraph-5 that on such approach, the Joint Secretary told him that there was no requirement to take the documents and advised him to reply to the show cause notice by accepting the charges leveled against him and upon it being done, he would immediately be reinstated. Accordingly, as per the advice of the Joint Secretary, the petitioner submitted reply dated 27.06.2013 where he had admitted to the charges leveled against him on a belief that he should be reinstated. Accordingly, as per the advice of the Joint Secretary, the petitioner submitted reply dated 27.06.2013 where he had admitted to the charges leveled against him on a belief that he should be reinstated. 5. In paragraph-5 of the writ petition, it has been stated as under:- wxyz "...... Being a simple and honest man he verbally stated before the Joint Secretary that he has not committed any offence nor he has fabricated any document. On such approach, the Joint Secretary, told him that there is no need to take the documents and also advice him that you give reply to the show cause notice by accepting the charges leveled against you and we will re-instate you immediately. As per the advice of the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, the petitioner on 27/06/2013 submitted his reply by admitting the charges leveled against him with bonafide hope that he will be re-instated soon." zyxw wxyz In reply thereof, the Joint Secretary in the affidavit in opposition in paragraph-8 had stated that the statement made in paragraph- 2 to 12 are matters of record and the deponent of the affidavit does not admit anything which is not in accordance with the record. zyxw 6. The averment made in paragraph-5 of the writ petition being a specific averment that the petitioner had undertaken the admission to the charges and therebeing no denial of averment in the affidavit in opposition, we cannot take any other view but to accept the stand taken by the writ petitioner that the admission was a result of being told to do so by the Joint Secretary. 7. In Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors., -vs- Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt) and Anr, (2005) 11 SCC 279 in paragraph-8, the Supreme Court in paragraph-8 had held as follows:- wxyz "..... or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute ...." zyxw 8. As held by the Supreme Court in order to base solely upon an admission to bring any adverse inference against any person the admission must be of such nature that it is not disputed by the person who is stated to have made the admission. As held by the Supreme Court in order to base solely upon an admission to bring any adverse inference against any person the admission must be of such nature that it is not disputed by the person who is stated to have made the admission. In the instant case, we have already taken note of that although there is a specific stand in the writ petition that the admission was made by the writ petitioner on being asked to do so by the Joint Secretary and there being no denial by the Joint Secretary in the affidavit that he had asked the petitioner to make such admission, we have no other option but to accept that the admission made by the petitioner which had been relied upon by the respondent authorities for terminating his services as an admission in dispute. Apart from relying upon the law of non traversal as regards the statement by the petitioner in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, we have to take note of that the specific stand of the writ petitioner that the admission was made on being asked by the Joint Secretary had been admitted by the Joint Secretary by virtue of the principle of admission by silence , which means the failure of a party to speak after any parties assertion of fact that have untrue, would naturally compel a person to deny the statement. 9. In view of such conclusion as regards the admission made by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 15.06.2013 and in the statement dated 09.09.2013 before the Enquiry Officer, we are of the view that the admission of the petitioner relied upon being an admission in dispute, it would be unsafe to rely upon the same to arrive at the order of termination dated 27.03.2015. Accordingly, the order of termination as well as proceeding initiated against the petitioner from the stage of admission contained in the show cause reply dated 27.06.2013 is interfered. The respondents may proceed against the petitioner from the stage of the show cause notice dated 15.06.2013 and the requirement of such further proceeding also shall not preclude the respondent authorities from obtaining any admission from the petitioner, if the petitioner voluntarily desires to make so after explaining him the circumstance and implication of such admission. 10. The respondents may proceed against the petitioner from the stage of the show cause notice dated 15.06.2013 and the requirement of such further proceeding also shall not preclude the respondent authorities from obtaining any admission from the petitioner, if the petitioner voluntarily desires to make so after explaining him the circumstance and implication of such admission. 10. As the interference of the order of termination is made on the sole reason that from the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that there is a dispute to the admission and not as a matter of arriving at any conclusion in favour of the petitioner on the merits of the allegation made against him, we provide that in the event, the respondents desire to further proceed with the proceeding against the petitioner, no backwages would be required to be paid and for the purpose the respondents may follow the procedure of law. As it is stated that the petitioner would have otherwise superannuated by now, it is provided that in the event further proceeding being continued against the petitioner, it be completed at the earliest preferably within a period two months as agreed by the parties. In the above terms, writ petition stands disposed of.