JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. K.K. Wotsa, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the imposition of penalty under Rule 7(iii) of The Nagaland Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1967 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 1967), vide Order dated 20.12.2019, the Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The facts of the instant case is that the Petitioner joined the service in the yea r 1991 as an Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC) via open examination conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission and on being promoted he is now currently serving in the post of the Additional Secretary. By a Notification no. PAR-4/17/2004/Adated 04.12.2017, the Petitioner who was then serving as the Deputy Commissioner of LonglengDistrictwas transferred and posted as Joint Secretary, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. On the basis of the said Notification, the Petitioner handed over the charge to the incumbent vide Memo no. LLG/CON-7/2009-10/660 dated 11.12.2017 and thereafter reported to his new place of posting vide Memo no. PAR-4/22/91-NCS dated 14.12.2017. 4. It is the Petitioner’s case that when the Petitioner reported for duty on 14.12.2017 there was no office room with basic amenities, such as tables and chairs, made available for his dispensation. The Petitioner further contends that he had reported the same to the various authorities including the Nazarat Branch of the Home Department, Government of Nagaland and more specifically to the Deputy Secretary in the Nazarat Branch of the Home Department. However, in spite of the various requests made by the Petitioner, the concerned Department could not facilitate any arrangement to even temporarily accommodate the Petitioner. The Petitioner further states that an extension was made to facilitate an office room in his Department; however, the same was allotted to an Under Secretary. While said problems were being faced by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was accorded officiating promotion from Selection Grade to Higher Selection Grade, which was regularized vide Notification no. PAR-4/1/2016/B dated 01.06.2018, wherein the Petitioner appears at Clause 3, Serial no. 7, and the Petitioner had been serving as the Additional Secretary in the said Department without any office. 5. Thereafter, on 10.10.2019 the Petitioner received a Show-cause notice bearing no. PAR-4/1/2016/B dated 01.06.2018, wherein the Petitioner appears at Clause 3, Serial no. 7, and the Petitioner had been serving as the Additional Secretary in the said Department without any office. 5. Thereafter, on 10.10.2019 the Petitioner received a Show-cause notice bearing no. PAR-4/22/2013(A) whereby it was alleged that the Petitioner has not been attending office since joining the Department w.e.f. 14.12.2017 without obtaining leave from the competent authority, and it was mentioned in the said Show-cause notice why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated for violation of Rule 4(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Nagaland Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1968 (Hereinafter referred to as The Conduct Rules). At this stage it may be relevant herein to mention that a perusal of the said Show-cause notice enclosed as Annexure-D to the Writ Petition shows that the said Show-cause notice was issued on the basis of certain reports received by the Department. Such “reports”, however were not served upon the Petitioner. Further to that the said Show-cause notice was only issued seeking a reply why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated. 6. On the same day, the Joint Secretary of the Respondent No. 2-Department (P & AR Department) issued a letter bearing No. PAR-4/22/2013(C) to the Special Officer (Accounts), Bill & Cash, Kohima, whereby the addressee to the said communication was directed to withhold payment of salary to the Petitioner with immediate effect till further notice for absence from office for a long period without obtaining leave from competent authority. Another communication was also issued by the said Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to the Secretary, Transport Department, Kohima, Nagaland, bearing no. PAR 4/22/2013(D) whereby the addressee to the said communication was directed to withdraw the attached vehicles/drivers of the two NCS officers including the Petitioner with immediate effect till further notice for absence from office without obtaining leave from a competent authority. 7. The Petitioner, thereupon, on 15.10.2019 replied to the Show-cause notice stating inter alia that he joined in his official duty w.e.f. 14.12.2017, however, till the date of issuance of the said reply, the Home Department did not allot the Petitioner a working room with proper office tables and chairs in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat. He further mentioned that he had requested several times to the Home Department but no action has been taken. He further mentioned that he had requested several times to the Home Department but no action has been taken. It was, however, mentioned that from the date of joining, the Petitioner had come to the office every month and every week even though there is no room provided. The Petitioner further said that if the Home Department had allotted the proper official room with basic furniture, he would definitely perform his duty with commitment and sincerity. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner vide representation dated 04.12.2019 requested the Respondent no. 2 to recall/revoke Show-cause notice dated 10.10.2019. 8. To the surprise of the Petitioner, on 05.12.2019, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, issued an Order bearing no. PAR-4/22/91/NCS whereby ex-post facto sanction for commuted leave spanning for a period of 45 (forty-five) days on medical ground was sanctioned to the Petitioner w.e.f. 02.04.2018 to 16.05.2018, prefixing 01.04.2018 to the leave period, under the Revised Leave Rules, 1972. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner would have continued to hold the same post but for his proceeding on leave and that the above period of leave will count towards his future increments. 9. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, issued an Order bearing no. PAR-4/22/2013/A, dated 20.12.2019 whereby the reply to the Show-cause notice dated 10.10.2019 was rejected on the ground that non allotment of room cannot be an excuse for absence from official duty for such a long period. Accordingly, on the violation of Rule 4 (1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of The Conduct Rules and in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 7 of The Rules of 1967, the recovery of the entire salary drawn by the Petitioner during the period of his unauthorized leave w.e.f. 15.12.2017 to 01.04.2018 and from 17.05.2018 to 15.10.2019 not exceeding 30% of the total emoluments due per month was directed to be recovered with immediate effect. Further to that, the Petitioner was also warned not to repeat the same in the future for which disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him. 10. Further to that, the Petitioner was also warned not to repeat the same in the future for which disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him. 10. It is against the said Show-cause notice dated 10.10.2019; the communication issued to the Special Officer (Accounts) to withhold the salary of the Petitioner dated 10.10.2019, the communication to the Secretary Transport Department withdrawing the attached vehicle/drivers to the Petitioner dated 10.10.2019; the Order dated 05.12.2019 by which the ex-post facto sanction was granted for leave of 45 days; as well as the Order dated 20.12.2019 by which penalty under Rule 7(iii) of The Rules of 1967 was imposed upon the Petitioner; the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. This Court vide Order dated 24.01.2020 issued notice and in the interim provided that the Order dated 10.10.2019 of withholding the salary of the Petitioner, the Order dated 20.12.2019 by which the recovery has been ordered from the salary drawn by the Petitioner w.e.f. 15.12.2017 was stayed until further orders. It was also directed that the Respondents shall ensure that the Petitioner gets his monthly salary. It further appears from the records that on 24.02.2020, 03.12.2020, 26.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 24.09.2021, and 19.10.2021, the Respondent authorities sought time to file the Affidavit-in-Opposition but have not filed their affidavit in spite of various chances being granted to them. 12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. L. Iralu, has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 7 of The Rule of 1967 to show that the said Rule stipulates the various penalties that can be imposed upon a Government servant. He submits that in the instant case, the Petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of Rule 7(iii) whereby a penalty for recovery from the Government servant’s pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of order to the Government of Nagaland or the Central Government or any other State Government, or any local or other Authority to whom services of a Government servant had been lent. He further submits that the said Rules of 1967 stipulates a procedure for imposing penalty and the same can be found on reading of Rule 9.He refers to Rules 9(1) & 9(2) of The Rules of 1967 and also to Schedule IV and Schedule V of the said Rules. He further submits that the said Rules of 1967 stipulates a procedure for imposing penalty and the same can be found on reading of Rule 9.He refers to Rules 9(1) & 9(2) of The Rules of 1967 and also to Schedule IV and Schedule V of the said Rules. It is the basic contention of the counsel of the petitioner that without following the Rules which are statutory in nature, the imposition of penalty under Rule 7(iii) upon the Petitioner is in violation of the said Rules for which it requires to be interfered with. He submits that the concept of issuing Show-cause notice for the purpose of imposition of penalty in the nature of Rule 7(iii) is in total violation to The Rules of 1967. He further submits that a perusal of the Show-cause notice would show that the authorities concerned have relied upon certain reports. No such “reports” have been furnished to the Petitioner and when an authority exercises their jurisdiction for imposition of a penalty, the said authority exercises jurisdiction as a Quasi Judicial Authority and it is the mandate of law that all such reports which are against the Petitioner ought to have been served upon the Petitioner so that the Petitioner could submit an effective reply. He submits that the imposition of penalty vide the impugned Order dated 20.12.2019 is in violation to the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the orders by which the salary of the Petitioner has been withheld, and the vehicles have been withdrawn and ex-post facto sanction was granted for commuted leave on medical ground are completely in violation to the provisions of The Rules of 1967 and dehors the various penalties that can be imposed upon the Petitioner by the said Rules. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that any other penalties so imposed which is outside the scope of Rule 7 is on the face of it without jurisdiction and authority. 13. Mr. K.K. Wotsa, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, submits that a perusal of the materials on record would show that the Petitioner has been absent from work since 14.12.2017 and the authorities concerned have taken a very lenient approach in only imposing a minor penalty under Rule 7(iii) of The Rules of 1967. 13. Mr. K.K. Wotsa, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, submits that a perusal of the materials on record would show that the Petitioner has been absent from work since 14.12.2017 and the authorities concerned have taken a very lenient approach in only imposing a minor penalty under Rule 7(iii) of The Rules of 1967. However, he candidly admits in all fairness that there were no disciplinary proceedings initiated in terms of Rule 9 of The Rules of 1967. He submits that a perusal of the Order dated 20.12.2012 would also show that the Petitioner was warned not to repeat the same mistake in the future, else disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against him. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and given my anxious consideration to the matter. Two questions arise for determination in view of the various orders impugned in the instant proceedings. One is, can the imposition of penalty under Rule 7(iii) be done without following the mandate of Rule 9 of The Rules of 1967; and the other is, can the authority impose penalty not prescribed under the statutory rules that too without holding any disciplinary proceedings. Let this Court take into consideration the first question as to whether the Respondent authorities had the authority and jurisdiction to impose the minor penalty as stipulated in Rule 7(iii) without following the procedure as stipulated in Rule 9 of the said rules. For the purpose of the instant case, Rule 9 is quoted hereinbelow. “9. Procedure for imposing penalties: 1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in rule 7 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. 2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Such charges, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Standard Form of Memorandum of Charge-Sheet and Memorandum are specified in Schedule IV and V. Explanation: - In this sub-rule (3) the expression “Disciplinary Authority” shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Government servant any of the penalties specified in rule 7. 3) The Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that such permission may be refused, if, for, reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto. Provided that when a Government servant is permitted to inspect and take extracts from official records due care shall be taken against tampering, removal or destruction of records. 4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint for the purpose a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer. 5) The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority). The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority, as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. A Standard Form of order relating to appointment of Inquiry Officer is specified in Schedule-V. 6) The Inquiry Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or materials in regard to the charges. A Standard Form of order relating to appointment of Inquiry Officer is specified in Schedule-V. 6) The Inquiry Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or materials in regard to the charges. The Government servant shall be entitled to cross examine any witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person, and to adduce documentary and oral evidence in his defence. The person presenting the case in support of the charges shall be entitled to cross examine the Government servant and the witnesses examined in his defence. If the Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness or to admit any document in evidence on the ground that his evidence or such document is not relevant or materials, it shall record its reasons in writing. 7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefore. 8) The record of the Inquiry shall include- The charges framed against the Government servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him under Sub-rule (2) ii) His written statement of defence, if any; iii) The oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry; iv) The documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry; v) The order, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; and vi) A report setting out the findings on each charges and the reasons therefore. 9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on its charges.” A reading of the above Rule, more particularly sub-rule (1), of Rule 9 categorically mentions that no order imposing on a Government servant any penalty specified in Rule 7 can be passed except after an inquiry held as far as may be in the manner as provided in the said rule. For the purpose of conducting an inquiry in terms with sub-rule (2), of Rule 9, the Disciplinary Authority is required to frame definitive charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. For the purpose of conducting an inquiry in terms with sub-rule (2), of Rule 9, the Disciplinary Authority is required to frame definitive charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges so framed together with the statement of the allegation on which they are based shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant and the Government servant would be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority a written statement of his defense and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Schedule IV and Schedule V of The Rules of 1967 stipulates the standard form of Memorandum of charge issued and Memorandum which are to be issued to the Government servant at the time of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (3), of Rule 9 gives an opportunity to the Government servant for the purpose of preparing his defense by inspecting the documents and taking extracts from such official records as the Government servant may specify, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the disciplinary authority may refuse such records after it finds such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow the Government servant access thereto. Sub-rule (4), of Rule 9 stipulates that upon receipt of the written statement of defense, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the charges as are not admitted or may appoint for that purpose a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiry Officer. Sub-rule (5), of Rule 9 authorizes the disciplinary authority to nominate a person to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges and also permits the Government servant to seek assistance of any Government servant approved by the disciplinary authority. If the disciplinary authority engages any legal practitioner the Government servant may also engage a legal practitioner. If the disciplinary authority engages any legal practitioner the Government servant may also engage a legal practitioner. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 9 permits not only the disciplinary authority to lay such evidence in support of the charges but also gives a valuable right to the Government servant to lay evidence on his part and also cross examine the witnesses who have testified in support of the charges and thereupon in terms with the said sub-rule and sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9, after hearing both the parties, the Inquiring Officer would submit a report with reasons in writing, therefor. It is thereupon in terms with sub-Rule (9) of Rule 9 that the disciplinary authority, if it is not the inquiring authority consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on its charges. 15. Thus, it would be seen that a detailed procedure has been laid down in Rule 9 of The Rules of 1967.The concept of issuance of Show-cause notice and to impose a penalty under Rule 7 (iii) is in complete violation to The Rules of 1967. Here, in the instant case, it would be seen that the Show-cause notice was issued on 10.10.2019 wherein reference has been made to certain reports. It is also relevant to take note of that fact that vide the said Show-cause notice the Petitioner only was asked to Show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against the Petitioner for violation of Rules 4(i), 4(ii) and 4(iii) of The Conduct Rules. No charges were framed; neither any statement of allegations, nor charges so framed against the Petitioner was intimated to the Petitioner as required under Rule 9(2). The Petitioner submitted a reply on 15.10.2019 and also submitted a representation dated 04.12.2020 to revoke/recall the Show-cause notice. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 20.12.2019 would show that the penalty under Rule 7(iii) was imposed dehors to The Rules of 1967. At this stage it may also be relevant herein to mention that The Rules of 1967are rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such these Rules are statutory in nature and non-compliance by the authority concerned renders the action so taken bad in law. 16. The matter can also be looked from another angle. 16. The matter can also be looked from another angle. The Respondent authority vide Annexure-D issued the Show-cause notice asking the Petitioner to Show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated for violation of Rule 4(i), (ii) and (iii) of The Conduct Rules. Therefore, the said Show-cause notice was issued only for the purpose of determination as to whether disciplinary proceeding should be initiated against the petitioner or not. The said notice was not issued for the purpose of making adjudication into the alleged contravention but as stated herein was only for deciding whether inquiry should be conducted. The stage when inquiry is to be conducted is subsequent after the decision to be taken in respect to the said Show-cause proceedings. But what is done in the instant case is that on the basis of the said Show-cause notice and without arriving to a decision as to whether a disciplinary proceeding should be initiated or not; the impugned Order dated 20.12.2019 was passed, thereby imposing the penalty under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules of 1967. This is not only in clear violation to The Rules of 1967 but also in violation of the Principle of Natural Justice for which the impugned Order dated 20.12.2019 is set aside and quashed. 17. Now, the next question which arises for consideration before this Court is as regards the legality and validity of the communications dated 10.10.2019 issued for withdrawal of the attached vehicles/drivers, the withholding of the salary and according of the ex-post facto sanction for commuted leave for a period of 45(forty-five) days on medical ground by an Order dated 05.12.2019. In this regard, reference may be drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vijay Singh V. State of UP reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242 and more particularly to paragraph no. 13, 14 and 15 being relevant is quoted herein below: “13. The Authority has to act or purport to act in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Statute or Statutory Rules. (See: The Poona City Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya Nagesh Deodhar; The Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Niyamatulla; J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, Morvi, and Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Employees Union v. D.D. Bambode) 14. The issue involved herein is required to be examined from another angle also. (See: The Poona City Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya Nagesh Deodhar; The Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Niyamatulla; J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, Morvi, and Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Employees Union v. D.D. Bambode) 14. The issue involved herein is required to be examined from another angle also. Holding departmental proceedings and recording a finding of guilt against any delinquent and imposing the punishment for the same is a quasi-judicial function and not administrative one. (Vide: Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab ; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. and Coal India Ltd.v. Ananta Saha 15. Imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by the statutory rules. Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory rules under which punishment is to be imposed. The disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said rules. Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant.” A perusal of the said paragraphs would go to show that imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and approved by statutory rules and, therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory rules under which punishment is to be imposed. A perusal of the various penalties as stipulated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1967 would show that the penalties so imposed, vide the impugned communications dated 10.10.2019 as well as the Order dated 05.12.2019 are foreign to the said Rules of 1967. The above quoted judgment would also show that the disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said Rules and the Order of punishment imposed outside the purview of the statutory Rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the Petitioner. Consequently, communications dated 10.10.2019 enclosed is Annexure-E-1 and E-2 and the Order dated 05.12.2019 enclosed is Annexure-G is set aside and quashed. 18. Consequently, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed. 19. However, it is observed that if the Respondent Authorities desires to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, the same may be done so in consonance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1967.