JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Standing Counsel for the PWD, and Mr. A. Boro, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 1. The petitioner is a retired employee who retired on 31.10.2003 as Junior Engineer, PWD, Assam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the departmental proceeding initiated against him and the subsequent imposition of penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.20,19,807/-. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was a Junior Engineer (Civil) and holding the charge of Central Store, under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rehabari and discharged his duty in the said capacity from 01.06.1987 to 11.10.1991. 3. On 11.10.1991, while petitioner was transferred out of the said charge, the petitioner handed over his charge to the next incumbent and there was a stock discrepancy of Rs. 2,19,671/-which is discernible from the form ‘C’ under the Assam PWD Code (Annexure –C). 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after 1 year 6 months of his handing over charge as Store In-charge on 11.10.1991, a show cause notice was issued by the Executive Engineer for alleged shortage of store material and resultant misappropriation. 5. According to the petitioner, vide his letter dated 07.05.1993, the petitioner refuted the contents of the allegation as made in the show cause notice and prayed for his exoneration. 6. According to the petitioner, the matter thus rested for 6 years and on 15.07.1999, the charge sheet was filed with statement of allegation and list of documents. The petitioner once again replied to such charge sheet contending that the verification of store materials were done after handing over the charge by him, in his absence and behind his back. 7. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, regular enquiry was conducted and petitioner also participated in the said enquiry. 8. Thereafter, on 23.07.2002, the order of recovery of Rs. 20,19,807/-was passed and was directed to be recovered from the salary and pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF etc of the petitioner, as the petitioner was to retire in the year 2003. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a regular Departmental appeal, under the provisions of Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after referred as Rule 1964), before the Appellate Authority. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a regular Departmental appeal, under the provisions of Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after referred as Rule 1964), before the Appellate Authority. While nothing was done and such appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this court by way of WP(C)3649/2004 challenging the order of recovery as well as praying for a direction for release of his pension and pensionary benefits as the same was withheld for the reason of pendency of the Appeal. 10. This court, vide order dated 28.05.2004, disposed of the said writ petition and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal and also, directed that the authority will consider for payment of provisional pension and release of provident fund due to the petitioner. 11. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.03.2005, the Appellate Authority passed in pending appeal preferred by the petitioner, directed for re-enquiry and also directed for release of provisional pension of the petitioner. 12. According to the petitioner, after 7 years of the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority, another Enquiry Officer was appointed, by order dated 10.11.2012 to conduct a re-enquiry. According to the petitioner, subsequent to such fresh appointment of the Enquiry Officer, nothing proceeded. Thereafter, suddenly on 18.03.2013, once again the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,19,807/- was directed. The petitioner contends that no procedure established by law as well as provided in the Assam Services Rule, 1964 was followed. It is a specific case of the petitioner that no fresh notice of the re-enquiry was issued. Neither any witnesses were called for, nor any formal enquiry was held, prior to imposition of the penalty dated 18.03.2013. 13. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate authority, vide its order dated 17.10.2013 directed the Chief Engineer, to make scrutiny through the Re-Enquiry Officer, or any other senior Officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer and to submit a report before 24.10.2013. On the basis of such appellate order, scrutiny was done by the said officer and vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2013, the Appellate Authority decided to stand by the decision taken vide order dated 18.03.2013. Such orders are under challenge before this court. 14. Ms. Chakrborty submits that, in the meantime, though provisional pensions were paid, the petitioner was not paid the gratuity amount, leave encashment etc. Such orders are under challenge before this court. 14. Ms. Chakrborty submits that, in the meantime, though provisional pensions were paid, the petitioner was not paid the gratuity amount, leave encashment etc. According to Ms. Chakraborty, the provisional pension was also subsequently stopped w.e.f. 01.11.2013 i.e. from the month, subsequent to the passing the order of penalty dated 25.10.2013. 15. The basic contention of Ms. Chakraborty is that by virtue of the appellate order dated 23.03.2005, the earlier enquiry report was wiped out and re-enquiry was directed. Therefore, the authority ought to have started the enquiry afresh taking note of earlier charge sheet and the reply filed by the petitioner. But instead of doing so, the Enquiry Officer, subsequently appointed vide communication dated 10.11.2012, totally relied on the earlier Enquiry report. No notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner. It is specifically pleaded that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner of the re-enquiry nor was he allowed to participate in the enquiry or lead evidence or cross-examination any witnesses. According to Ms. Chakraborty in fact, no witnesses were examined, nobody was called for and the Enquiry Officer only re-appreciated the earlier enquiry report. According to Ms. Chakraborty, on the basis of such perfunctory enquiry, conducted in total disregard of principles of natural justice and the provision and procedure laid down in the Rule, 1964, once again the penalty of recovery, impugned in the present writ petition, was issued. Therefore, Ms. Chakraborty submits that, in view of such procedure adopted in contravention of Rule, 1964, the entire re-enquiry must fall and this court should interfere with such finding as well as the re-enquiry. Ms. Chakraborty also submits that in view of such violation of the petitioner right, the petitioner is further entitled for a direction for release of his pensionary benefits. 16. Per contra, Mr. Nath, the learned Standing Counsel for the PWD, submits that by way of the appellate order dated 22.03.2005, no de-novo enquiry was directed, rather for all meaning and purport, it was a direction by the Appellate Authority for re appreciation of the facts of the earlier proceedings. Therefore, no further procedure was required to be followed and accordingly such procedure was not followed. Therefore, question of violation of principle of natural justice or the ground that the re-enquiry has been taken behind the back of the petitioner has no legs to stand. 17. Therefore, no further procedure was required to be followed and accordingly such procedure was not followed. Therefore, question of violation of principle of natural justice or the ground that the re-enquiry has been taken behind the back of the petitioner has no legs to stand. 17. Therefore, Mr. Nath submits that since it was re-appreciation of materials of the earlier enquiry proceeding, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 18. The second contention of Mr. Nath, is that the petitioner in reply to the charge No. 1, has not specifically denied the charge No. 1, rather he has relied on the charge handing form ‘C’ wherein he himself has admitted that there is discrepancies in the store to the tune of Rs, 2,19,671/-. 19. Mr. Nath further contends that, even in the subsequent stage i.e. at the stage of appeal, the petitioner has candidly admitted that his liability of Rs. 2,19,671/-. Therefore, when a person admits his guilt, there is no necessity of a departmental proceeding, but in its own wisdom, the respondent authority has given a chance to the petitioner to participate in the Departmental proceeding. 20. It is also contention of Mr. Nath, that since the petitioner has admitted his guilt, no prejudice has been caused by way of the re-enquiry, even if, it is assumed that principle of nature justice was required to be given. According to Mr. Nath, the principle of natural justice cannot be a stair jacket formula rather such Principle will come into play, when violation of such principle of natural justice, has caused prejudice to the person who has alleged that there is violation of principle of natural justice. 21. Countering such submission of Mr. Nath, Ms. Chakraborty submits that to be an admission, it must be candid and unequivocal and in the case in hand there is no such admission of guilt. The fact remains that while handing over the charge, the petitioner himself has declared the deficiencies as he did not have any guilty mind, the same has been accepted by the authority and nothing was done. Further there is a total different charge in the charge memo in the departmental proceeding in comparison to the form ‘C’. Therefore, charge cannot be treated as admission in the eye of law. 22. Regarding the interpretation of Mr. Nath to the appellate order dated 22.03.2005, Ms. Further there is a total different charge in the charge memo in the departmental proceeding in comparison to the form ‘C’. Therefore, charge cannot be treated as admission in the eye of law. 22. Regarding the interpretation of Mr. Nath to the appellate order dated 22.03.2005, Ms. Chakraborty submits that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it was not a de-novo enquiry. The “re-enquiry” for all meaning and purport is a “fresh enquiry”. According to Ms. Chakraborty “re” means doing something afresh. Therefore, when the respondent have decided to go for a fresh enquiry, they ought to have strictly followed the extant procedure and the principles of natural justice. 23. This court has given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels. Also has gone through the materials available on record of this proceeding. 24. Mr. Nath submits that since the matter is long pending, the departmental proceeding records are not traceable. Therefore, this court is to decide the issues, on the basis of the materials available on record of this proceeding. 25. To answer the issues involved in the present lis, the following undisputed facts needs to be taken note of. (i) The first proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 28.04.1993 to which the petitioner filed reply on 07.05.1993. The charge sheet was filed on 15.07.1999 under the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules 1964 with two charges, to which the petitioner filed reply, vide his reply dated 16.09.1999. (ii) After completion of the departmental proceeding, Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Sri S. Kalita, the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Building Circle-II and on the basis of such enquiry report, vide order dated 23.07.2012, the following punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner. “After careful consideration of all aspects it is therefore ordered that Rs. (ii) After completion of the departmental proceeding, Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Sri S. Kalita, the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Building Circle-II and on the basis of such enquiry report, vide order dated 23.07.2012, the following punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner. “After careful consideration of all aspects it is therefore ordered that Rs. 20,19,807.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninteen Thousand Eight Hundred & Seven) only to be recovered from Sri Samaresh Bhattacharjee, from his monthly pay bill in equal installments and balance amount is to be recovered from permissible amount of pension Gratuity, Leave Encashment, G.P.F. other benefits etc.” (iii) The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 13 and 15 of the Rules 1964 was heard by the appellate authority i.e. Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD and after taking note of the reply of the petitioner and the enquiry report passed the following order dated 22.03.2005:- “After careful consideration and on review his Appeal petition, the Govt. of Assam has decided to make a re-enquiry into matter by the C.E. P.W.D. (Bldgs) Assam”. (iv) In compliance of the aforesaid order one Bhuban Ch. Chowdhury, Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Guwhati Buildings Circle-II, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct a re-enquiry vide order dated 10.11.2012. The said order is reproduced herein below:- “No.CE/BLD/CON/103/2007/30 Dated Guwahati the 10thNov/2012 OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of Govt. order NO. ADT/24/2000/289 dt. 22.03.2005 Sri Bhuban Ch. Chowdhury, Superintending Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Bldg. Circle-II is hereby appointed as enquiry officer to conduct a re-enquiry in to the departmental proceeding case against Sri Samaresh Ch. Bhattacharjee, JE (Retd.) office of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Bldg. Assam, Guwahati-3 as the then S.O. (Store) Rehabari under Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati Bldg. Division- I. (Re-enquiry) Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Bldg) Assam, Chandmari, Guwahati-3”. 26. A bare perusal of the aforesaid official records, a conclusion can safely be drawn that by order dated 22.03.2005, the Appellate Authority decided to go for “de-novo” enquiry. The word “re-enquiry” for all meaning and purport was an enquiry to be done afresh. Such conclusion can further be fortified from the order dated 10.11.2012 whereby a new Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a re-enquiry. 27. Therefore, the contention of learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Mr. The word “re-enquiry” for all meaning and purport was an enquiry to be done afresh. Such conclusion can further be fortified from the order dated 10.11.2012 whereby a new Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a re-enquiry. 27. Therefore, the contention of learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Mr. D. Nath that by way of the appellate order dated 22.03.2005, no “de-novo” enquiry was directed, rather for all meaning and purport, it was directed to re appreciate the conclusion of the earlier enquiry report and come to fresh finding cannot be accepted and same is hereby rejected. 28. In view of such finding, the further argument of Mr. Nath that, since it was a re appreciation of materials and not for a fresh enquiry, no prejudiced has been caused to the petitioner, also cannot be accepted. 29. When a “de-novo” enquiry was directed by the Appellate Authority and accordingly a new Enquiry Officer was appointed, the same will mean, that earlier order passed by the authority dated 23.07.2002 under challenge in the appeal, merges with the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, from the reading of the appellate order dated 22.03.2005, it is clear that final order of punishment was wiped out, more so, in view of the fact that on the basis of the re-enquiry another order of punishment was passed on 25.10.2013. 30. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that the re-enquiry ought to have been started from the filing of reply to the charge memo dated 15.07.1999. Therefore, for all meaning and purport, the re-enquiry was a fresh enquiry/ de-novo enquiry. 31. Since, this court has taken a view that, the Re-enquiry was a fresh enquiry, the authority ought to have followed the procedure laid down under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1964. The fact remains that, after passing of the order dated 22.03.2005 by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 10.11.2012, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department appointed the new Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 24.01.2013. A bare perusal of the said order, makes it abundantly clear that the said Enquiry Officer came to its finding in reference to the certain materials, which is reproduced herein below:- “(i) Available paper supplied by C.E. (Bulding), Assam, Guwahati-3 with enclosed Enquiry Report of the then, S. Kalita Superintending Engineer, PWD, Guwahati BuildingCircle-II,during2002. A bare perusal of the said order, makes it abundantly clear that the said Enquiry Officer came to its finding in reference to the certain materials, which is reproduced herein below:- “(i) Available paper supplied by C.E. (Bulding), Assam, Guwahati-3 with enclosed Enquiry Report of the then, S. Kalita Superintending Engineer, PWD, Guwahati BuildingCircle-II,during2002. (ii) Available Copy of Bin Cards of Rehabari Store Section under Guwahati Building Division-I, from 24.10.87 to 20.03.91. (i) Assam financial rules. (ii) Your memo No. CE/BLD/CON/103/207/30-B dtd. 10th Nov.2012”. 32. A specific stand has been taken by the petitioner at paragraph 24 of the writ petition to the following effect which is reproduced herein below:- “In the Enquiry Report, Enquiry Officer referred to the earlier Enquiry Report and available copy of Bin Cards of Rehabari Store Section under Guwhati Building Division 1 from 24.10.87 to 20.03.91. From the Enquiry Report it is apparent that the Re-enquiry was done in complete disregard to the provisions of Departmental proceeding under Assam Services Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1964. Petitioner was never called for re-enquiry and same was held behind his back. Re-enquiry was done without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself”. 33. Though, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent Department but no specific denial was made to the aforesaid statement. The affidavit is absolutely silent on such allegation of the petitioner that without any notice or without giving him any opportunity, the re-enquiry was conducted behind his back. The respondents in the affidavit only reiterated their stand on the merit of the charges. 34. In that view of the matter, this court is left with no other option but to hold that there were gross violations of the principle of natural justice to the prejudice of the petitioner, as well as in gross violations of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1964, more particularly Sub-Rule 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules, 1964. Further, there was no findings on the charges leveled against the petitioner. In fact there are no mention of the charges in the said enquiry report. Therefore, such enquiry report is liable to be set aside being in violation of aforesaid provision of law. 35. Pursuant to such enquiry report, vide order dated 18.03.2013, the penalty for recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,9,807/-was imposed upon the petitioner. In fact there are no mention of the charges in the said enquiry report. Therefore, such enquiry report is liable to be set aside being in violation of aforesaid provision of law. 35. Pursuant to such enquiry report, vide order dated 18.03.2013, the penalty for recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,9,807/-was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority and a specific stand was taken in the appeal also that the said re-enquiry was done behind the back of the petitioner, that he was not asked to attend the re-enquiry, that he was highly prejudiced and that the same was against the principle of natural justice. The Appellate Authority also has not taken into consideration the allegation of the petitioner regarding the violation of principles of natural justice and that the re-enquiry was done behind his back. 36. Accordingly, This court is of the view that, the said non consideration of the claim of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, is fatal to the entire decisions, as there is total disregard of principles of natural justice. 37. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel Mr. Nath, relating to the admission of the appellant regarding shortage of certain materials in the store, this court finds from the available materials on record that the respondent authority never acted on such purported admission, rather, they initiated the first enquiry on a different set of allegations, did the re-enquiry and after re-enquiry, directed for scrutiny of the re-enquiry but nowhere, there is any whisper regarding admission by the petitioner. In fact, such objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents PWD, first time during the course of argument. No whisper has, ever been made in their affidavit regarding such plea. 38. Therefore, this court cannot accept such kind of submissions at this stage that too without making any such pleading in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed in this proceeding so that the petitioner can also respond to the same by filing reply. Therefore, such contention is also rejected. 39. Further the strict adherence of the principle of natural justice is necessary in a departmental proceeding. In this regard, this court safely relying on a paragraph of a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Md. Yunus Khan – Vs-State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539 . 16. Therefore, such contention is also rejected. 39. Further the strict adherence of the principle of natural justice is necessary in a departmental proceeding. In this regard, this court safely relying on a paragraph of a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Md. Yunus Khan – Vs-State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539 . 16. We have to proceed, keeping in mind the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though, the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of natural justice require to be observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the inquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. (See Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.,1 AIR 1963 SC 395 ; Union of India v. H.C. Goel,2 AIR 1964 SC 364 ; Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors.,3 AIR 1985 SC 1121 ; Moni Shankar v. Union of India & Anr.4 (2008) 3 scc 484 ; and Union of India & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Tandon,5 (2009) 2 scc 541 ). 40. Having thus interfered, now this court is to decide whether the matter needs to be remitted back to the authority. While considering such an issue, this court needs to take note of facts and circumstance of each case. 41. The fact remains that the alleged misappropriation/ misconduct was done during the period from 01.06.1987 to 11.10.1991, when the petitioner was working at Rehabari, Central Store of the Department. 42. The charge memo was filed on 15.07.1999 after 6 (six) years from the show cause reply of the petitioner dated 28.04.1990. The petitioner retired from his service during the pendency of the appeal, the re-enquiry was directed vide order dated 22.03.2005, ‘Re-enquiry’ officer was appointed vide order dated. 42. The charge memo was filed on 15.07.1999 after 6 (six) years from the show cause reply of the petitioner dated 28.04.1990. The petitioner retired from his service during the pendency of the appeal, the re-enquiry was directed vide order dated 22.03.2005, ‘Re-enquiry’ officer was appointed vide order dated. 10.11.2012 i.e. more than 7 years and the final order of punishment was passed on 25.10.2013 i.e. after more than 20 (twenty) years of the issuance of the first show cause notice dated 28.04.1993. 43. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner was paid provisional pension during the pendency of the re-enquiry, the petitioner has not been paid the Gratuity, Leave Encashment. The provisional pension was also stopped from the month of November i.e. from the subsequent month from the date of order of punishment dated 25.10.2013. 44. There can hardly be any doubt that no person can be allowed to misappropriate money belonging to any institution be it public or private. To punish such a person, the law would require that allegation of such charges be established in accordance with law. Such proceeding should be done by following due process of law. The respondents, in the case in hand are bound by the provisions of the Rules, 1964 more particularly the procedure provided under Rule 9 of the said Rules, 1964. But the Respondent Authority has done what law forbids them to do. They have given a complete go by to the mandate of law under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1964, and principles of natural justice. 45. To summaries, in the case in hand, the petitioner has faced prolonged departmental proceeding starting from 28.04.1993 (issuance of show cause notice) till the final order of punishment dated 25.10.2013 i.e. for more than 20 years. The petitioner has retired during pendency of the proceeding, in the year 2003(31.03.2003) and the present writ proceeding has been pending since 2015. More than 18 (eighteen) years have elapsed since the petitioner had superannuated and he is not in receipt of his pension since November, 2013. He had suffered immense. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for starting a de-novo enquiry at this belated stage and this court orders accordingly. 46. Having the aforesaid conclusions, now it is inevitable to grant the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. He had suffered immense. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for starting a de-novo enquiry at this belated stage and this court orders accordingly. 46. Having the aforesaid conclusions, now it is inevitable to grant the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. 47. In view of the aforesaid decisions, observation and findings, this Court while allowing this writ petition, order the following:- (i) The Re-enquiry report dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure-X) is set aside and quashed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure-XIV) imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 21,9,807/-is set aside and quashed. (iii) The impugned order dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure-XVIII) upholding the order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure-XIV) is hereby set aside and quashed. (iv) The respondent Authorities are directed to pay the petitioner his pensionary dues and admissible Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc including scale of pay/ pension at the revised rate, if due, within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. (v) The parties will bear their own costs.