JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education, Assam appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 5. 2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an order dated 30.07.2011, by which the disciplinary authority, proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner, herein, basing on the allegations so leveled against her, vide a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order dated 18.01.2012, passed by the appellate authority, rejecting her appeal petition dated 02.11.2011; preferred against the said order dated 30.07.2011. 3. The facts in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues, arising in the present proceeding are noticed as under:- The petitioner, herein, had joined the Electrical Engineering Department, Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat, as a Lecturer in pursuance to a notification dated 30.09.1983. The petitioner, in the year 1984, came to be transferred to the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College, in the same capacity. The petitioner acquired her M. Tech Degree in Instrumentation Engineering in the year 1980 from IIT Kharagpur and thereafter, the petitioner, came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College in the year 1993. It is to be noted that the petitioner, in the year 2002 had acquired a Ph. D Degree in Instrumentation Engineering. The Instrumentation Engineering Branch having been so introduced in the Department of Electrical Engineering in the Assam Engineering College, the petitioner was assigned the responsibility to design courses and laboratories for offering the said course and she was the only faculty member in the department qualified to take classes in the branch of Instrumentation Engineering. It is contended that the petitioner took all requisite steps for a smooth conduct of the said course so introduced. The respondent authorities, vide the notification dated 19.08.2005, proceeded to promote the Assistant Professors named therein, belonging to different departments of the Engineering Colleges of the State to officiate as Professors, under Regulation 4(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951. The respondent authorities, vide the notification dated 19.08.2005, proceeded to promote the Assistant Professors named therein, belonging to different departments of the Engineering Colleges of the State to officiate as Professors, under Regulation 4(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951. The name of the petitioner figured in the said list against the Electrical Engineering Department. The petitioner having been posted on her such promotion to Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat, given the problems she and her family stood to face in the event of her moving to Jorhat, the petitioner, applied before the competent authority for extension of joining time with a further request to post her on such promotion, at Assam Engineering College. The said prayer of the petitioner was regretted by the respondent authorities vide communication dated 15.09.2005. Under such circumstances, the petitioner proceeded to join against her promoted post of Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Jorhat Engineering College on 22.09.2005. On two posts of Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College, becoming vacant, the petitioner, applied for her transfer and posting against any one of the vacant posts so available. The said application of the petitioner was favorably recommended by the Director of Technical Education, Assam. However, the prayer so made by the petitioner was not favorably considered by the competent authority. It is contended by the petitioner that the rejection of her transfer application caused a depression to her and the separation of her daughters from the petitioner, on account of her transfer to Jorhat Engineering College, affected her daughters both mentally and physically. The petitioner started to have physical problems and the same further deteriorated, on her younger daughter’s health deteriorating. It is contended that the petitioner continued her duties at Jorhat, till 16.01.2006 and to manage the problems faced by her daughters, the petitioner had availed Earned Leave w.e.f., 17.01.2006 and thereafter, resumed her duties on 05.04.2006. However, in the month of May, 2006; the daughter of the petitioner was advised to undergo surgical procedure on account of the health issues faced by her. However, in the month of May, 2006; the daughter of the petitioner was advised to undergo surgical procedure on account of the health issues faced by her. The operation although performed, the complications faced by the younger daughter of the petitioner continued to persist and accordingly, on a discussion with one of her elder sisters, the petitioner, proceeded to Pune during June, 2006, with a view to treat her daughter at a hospital therein; and also, to admit her therein, in a residential school. It is contended in the writ petition that the situation, the petitioner had found herself to be in, affected her both mentally and physically and accordingly, after the summer vacations i.e. w.e.f., 01.08.2006, the petitioner, decided to apply for leave to look after her younger daughter. Accordingly, the petitioner handed over charge of her post to the Principal, Jorhat Engineering College, which was contended to have been accepted and acknowledged. The petitioner proceeded on Extra Ordinary Leave w.e.f., 01.08.2006 to 31.10.2006, after submitting due application and necessary documents. The petitioner had further prayed for extension for the period of her leave w.e.f., 01.11.2006 to 31.10.2007. The application submitted by the petitioner along with the requisite medical certificates were duly forwarded to the Director of Technical Education, Assam, however, it is contended that the same were not forwarded to the Government in the Higher Education Department for necessary approval, on the plea that the petitioner had not submitted proper medical certificates. Poised thus, the petitioner was intimated in the year 2007, that an enquiry was ordered against her. It is contended that the said enquiry was on the basis of a complaint made against the petitioner by some anonymous colleagues of her. Given the above position, as faced by the petitioner and the need of her daughter for having constant attention, the petitioner had submitted an application for voluntary retirement, on 14.09.2007. It is contended that a preliminary enquiry was carried out against the petitioner, basing on the anonymous complaint as preferred against her in the matter and an enquiry report, in this connection, was submitted on 23.10.2007. The statement of the petitioner was contended to have been recorded in the said preliminary enquiry but, she contends that she was not informed about the allegations so leveled against her, which had necessitated the enquiry in question. The statement of the petitioner was contended to have been recorded in the said preliminary enquiry but, she contends that she was not informed about the allegations so leveled against her, which had necessitated the enquiry in question. Basing on the said preliminary enquiry report, dated 23.10.2007, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, proceeded to initiate a departmental proceeding against her vide issuance of show-cause notice, dated 25.11.2009. The petitioner submitted her show-cause reply on 25.02.2010 and therein, while denying the allegations leveled against her; also, clarified the issue pertaining to the allegations so leveled, of she having engaged and associated with an organization, namely, SIMS, Lonavala, Maharashtra and of taking classes therein from January, 2006. It is contended that in pursuance to submission of show-cause reply by the petitioner, no further enquiry as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964was conducted and in clear violation of the provisions of the said Rules of 1964, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner proceeded to issue notification dated 30.07.2011, imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service. The said order is contended to have been so issued by considering the show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner and also the preliminary enquiry report, noticed herein above. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted an appeal against the said order, dated 30.07.2011, on 22.12.2011. The appeal as preferred by the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority and vide the order dated 18.01.2012, by concluding that there is no valid ground incorporated in the appeal so filed by the petitioner, herein, warranting review of the order of penalty of dismissal from service, dated 30.07.2011; the appeal as preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.07.2011 and 18.01.2012, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner after reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that the petitioner, on account of the problems faced by her, which had the effect of keeping her away from the college, wherein she was so posted, had submitted an application on 14.09.2007, praying for voluntary retirement from service under the provisions of FR 56 (c) of the Assam FR & SR read with the Office Memorandum, dated 12.09.1984. It is contended that the petitioner having rendered around 23 years of service and the minimum requisite service mandated for applying for proceeding on voluntary retirement by an employee being 20 years, in terms of the OM dated 12.09.1984, the petitioner, on completion of 03 months notice period, ought to have been considered to have retired from her services. It is contended by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel that the said application of the petitioner was not responded to by the authorities. 5. By referring to the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, as issued in respect of the petitioner, it is contended that the allegations as leveled against the petitioner, therein, is clearly perverse. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, by taking the Court through the allegations so leveled against the petitioner has contended that the primary allegation against the petitioner is that she had engaged and associated herself with SIMS Lonavala, Maharashtra, a private organization imparting training on Marine Engineering and of taking classes, therein, since January, 2006; including the period during which the petitioner was on leave on medical grounds. Accordingly, it was alleged that application for Extra Ordinary Leave was so made on false medical ground. Mr. Bhattacharyya, submits that basing on the said allegations, the petitioner was charged of having violated the provisions of Rule 12ofAssam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. 6. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had clarified the matter in her show-cause reply dated 25.02.2010 and therein, had contended that the institute wherein the petitioner has been alleged to have been teaching during the period of her leave actually belongs to her elder sister’s family and accordingly, the petitioner used to be involved in academic matters of the said institute, on the assumption that the same was a family organization. 7. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, by taking this Court to the show-cause reply dated 25.02.2010, as preferred by the petitioner in the matter, has categorically contended that the petitioner, had not admitted to any of the allegations so leveled against her in the said show-cause notice, dated 25.11.2009. 8. Although, Mr. 7. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, by taking this Court to the show-cause reply dated 25.02.2010, as preferred by the petitioner in the matter, has categorically contended that the petitioner, had not admitted to any of the allegations so leveled against her in the said show-cause notice, dated 25.11.2009. 8. Although, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, had also developed an argument to the effect that the petitioner having already submitted her application for proceeding on voluntary retirement, on 14.09.2007 and by operation of law, the petitioner being deemed to have retired from her services on completion of 03 months from the date of submission of the said application, the show-cause notice as issued to her, on 25.11.2009 and the consequential steps, including the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service in pursuance thereof, would be inconsequential. However, given the dispute raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education Department, about the applicability of the provisions of FR 56(c) of the Assam FR & SR, Mr. Bhattacharyya has limited his arguments to the challenge presented to the impugned orders, dated 30.07.2011 and 18.01.2012. 9. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the order dated 30.07.2011, has submitted that the respondent authorities had come to a conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner, solely basing on her show-cause reply and the preliminary enquiry report, submitted in the matter by the enquiry officer so appointed. It is the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya, that the petitioner not having admitted the allegations as leveled against her, in the show-cause reply, the respondent authorities could not have proceeded to impose the said penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner vide the order dated 30.07.2011, on consideration of such reply of the petitioner. 10. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer as mentioned in the notification dated 30.07.2011, also finds mention in the list of documents, as annexed to the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009; and accordingly, contends that the said enquiry report being only in the nature of a preliminary enquiry report, the same could not have been so relied upon for imposition of penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the procedure adopted by the authorities in the matter after issuance of the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, contends that no enquiry having been held against the petitioner, herein, the imposition of penalty vide the order dated 30.07.2011, is in clear violation of the procedure as mandated under the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964. Mr. Bhattacharyya, submits that the procedure as mandated under the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964, which are mandatory in nature, having not been complied with the order dated 30.07.2011, cannot be sustained and requires to be interfered with. 12. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhattacharyya, has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of T. S. Srivastava Vs. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1972 Gau 2 . 13. Accordingly, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, submits that the order dated 30.07.2011, in addition to being in violation of the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964, is also in clear violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 14. By highlighting the fact that the writ petition in question, was filed way back on 27.06.2012 and had remained pending in the files of this Court, till the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Bhattacharyya, contends that the respondent authorities have not filed an affidavit in the matter. Accordingly, Mr. Bhattacharyya, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46, contends that the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition having not been controverted, this Court would proceed on the basis that the averments so made in the writ petition to have been admitted by the respondents, herein. 15. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, further, by referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narotam Chopra Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court& Ors., reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 97, Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Directors and Ors., reported in (1989) 3 SCC 448 and Raj Narain Vs. 15. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, further, by referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narotam Chopra Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court& Ors., reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 97, Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Directors and Ors., reported in (1989) 3 SCC 448 and Raj Narain Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 809 , has contended that in the event, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the penalty of dismissal from service, imposed upon the petitioner, vide the order dated 30.07.2011; is not sustainable and the same is set aside, the petitioner, herein, would be entitled to back wages and other consequential service benefits. 16. In the above premises, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the impugned order of penalty dated 30.07.2011 along with the order of the appellate authority, dated 18.01.2012, requires to be interfered by this Court and the petitioner is entitled to all consequential service benefits till the date of her retirement from service on reaching the age of superannuation. 17. Per contra, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department, Assam has submitted at the outset that the application as made by the petitioner on 14.09.2007, for proceeding on voluntary retirement was premature. It is contended that the reliance placed by the petitioner in the Office Memorandum dated 12.09.1984, in support of her application for proceeding on voluntary retirement is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the provisions of FR 56(c) of the Assam FR & SR was deleted on 13.05.1998 with immediate effect and the provisions of FR56 (k) (l) was inserted, which stipulates that a Government servant can apply for VRS only after attaining the age of 50 years. It is contended that the petitioner, at the time of submission of her said application, had not crossed the age of 50 years and accordingly, the said application was not liable to be so entertained. 18. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that during the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner, in her statement so recorded by the Enquiry Officer, on 12.09.2007 had admitted to the fact that during the period of her leave, she was taking classes in private organization. Basing on the said statement purportedly made by the petitioner in the preliminary enquiry, it is the contention of Mr. Basing on the said statement purportedly made by the petitioner in the preliminary enquiry, it is the contention of Mr. Gogoi, that no regular enquiry was called for in the matter, inasmuch as, the petitioner had admitted to the misconduct alleged against her. 19. Mr. Gogoi, has further submitted that if, this Court, on consideration of the matter, arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend the allegations so leveled against her and the penalty of dismissal from service, imposed upon the petitioner stood vitiated on such count, this Court, is required to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for conduct of the proceeding afresh, from the stage it stood vitiated and in this connection, Mr. Gogoi, in support of his submission, places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem Vs. S.Arichandran& Ors., reported in (2022) AIR (SC) 4611. 20. In addition to the above decision, Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has relied on the following decisions: - 1. (2023) AIR (SC) 1591 [Ashok Ram Parhad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.] 2. AIR 1968 SC 266 [Central Bank of India Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee] 3. (2023) LawHerald 439 [Kuldeep Singh Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee] 4. 2009 (11) SCC 22 [Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Hukum Chand] 5. 2013 (2) GLT 359 [Abbas Ali Vs. State Bank of India] 21. I have the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 22. The facts as noticed herein above are not disputed. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition were not disputed by the respondent authorities by filing an affidavit-in-opposition for long about 11 years, when it remained pending in the files of this Court, after its institution. 23. Accordingly, applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naseem Bano (supra), it is permissible for this Court to allow the writ petition by accepting the contentions raised therein, by the petitioner and grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner in the matter. However, considering the issue arising in the present proceedings, this Court refrains from adopting the said procedure. 24. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had proceeded on leave w.e.f., 17.01.2006. However, considering the issue arising in the present proceedings, this Court refrains from adopting the said procedure. 24. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had proceeded on leave w.e.f., 17.01.2006. Although, the petitioner has joined her services in between, however, the petitioner continued to remain largely absent from her services after 17.01.2006, on various counts and by applying for various kinds of leave, including Extra Ordinary Leave. 25. It is at this relevant point of time, when the petitioner was on leave, an anonymous complaint came to be made against her and the authorities, on receipt of such anonymous complaint, proceeded to direct for an enquiry thereto, by appointing an Enquiry Officer. 26. It is to be noted here that the said enquiry was in the form of a preliminary enquiry only. 27. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, including the recording of the statement of the petitioner, had submitted his report in the matter, on 23.10.2007. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner, on receipt of the said enquiry report dated 23.10.2007 and the same having disclosed commission of a misconduct by the petitioner in the matter, proceeded to issue a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, by invoking the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 28. The allegations leveled and charge framed thereon, against the petitioner, being relevant, are extracted herein below: - “That you had joined as Professor, Electrical Engineering in Jorhat Engineering College on 22-09-2005 and after rendering short spell of service proceeded on Earned Leave for 79 days w.e.f 17-01-2006 to 05-04-2006. You had returned from the said leave on 06-04-2006 and again after rendering a short spell of service and availing summer vacation till July 2006 applied Extra Ordinary Leave for 3 months w.e.f 01-08-2006 to 31-10-2006 and went on by handing over charge to the Principal of the college without any authority. Then after you had applied further extension of said leave for another one year w.e.f 01-11-2006 to 31-10-2007. In the mean- while you submitted an application tendering Voluntary retire- sent from service on 14-09-2007 and thus you had continued to be absent of duties without the authority from the competent authority. Then after you had applied further extension of said leave for another one year w.e.f 01-11-2006 to 31-10-2007. In the mean- while you submitted an application tendering Voluntary retire- sent from service on 14-09-2007 and thus you had continued to be absent of duties without the authority from the competent authority. Enquiry into the matter of your continuous absence with leave or without leave reveals that during the period of absence you had engaged and associated with SIMS, Lonavala, Maharastra purely a private organisation imparting training on Marine Engineering and had been taking classes there from January/2006 and even during the period of leave on medical ground when you were supposed to be on rest as per advice of the attending Physician. So it is evidently clear that you had applied Extra Ordinary Leave on false medical ground for your personal interest and thereby misled the authority. You are also well aware that as per provision of Rule 12 of the Assam Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1965, no Govt. servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any other employment. But inspite of knowing it well you had undertaken employment in SIMS and had been rendering service there without the sanction of the Govt. For the above, you had not only violated the Rule 12 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965, misled the authority by showing false and misleading health ground and deserted the duties as Professor of Electrical Engineering. Jorhat Engineering College but also acted in a manner most unbecoming of a Govt. Servant of your status and rank. You are, therefore, not only charged with under- taking other employment without the sanction of the Govt., misleading authority with false and misleading health ground and desertion of own Govt. duties but also thereby violation of Rule 12 and Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 and gross indiscipline.” 29. A perusal of the charge as leveled against the petitioner, would go to reveal that the petitioner was alleged to have engaged and associated herself in a private organization viz SIMS, Lonavala, Maharashtra during her period of absence. A perusal of the charge as leveled against the petitioner, would go to reveal that the petitioner was alleged to have engaged and associated herself in a private organization viz SIMS, Lonavala, Maharashtra during her period of absence. It was contended that the petitioner, on account of the said activity undertaken by her, without prior permission of the authorities, violated the provisions of Rule 12 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. 30. The show-cause notice further proceeds to allege against the petitioner, that she had not only violated the provisions of Rule 12 of the said Rules of 1965, but, had also misled the authorities by showing false and misleading health ground and had deserted her duties as Professor of Electrical Engineering in Jorhat Engineering College and therefore, was charged with undertaking other employment without sanction of the competent authority and also misleading the authorities with false and misleading statements, violating the provisions of Rule 12 and Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1965. 31. The petitioner, in her show-cause reply had denied the said allegations and had further clarified by contending that during her visits and stay at Pune, she had involved herself in academic matters of SIMS, Lonavala, Maharashtra, which was owned by her elder sister’s family and which she considered to be a family organization. The petitioner had not accepted the fact that she had provided false medical certificates and/or had misled the authorities by citing false health grounds as the reason for her absence from duties. This, when considered with the applications being submitted by the petitioner from time to time, praying for grant of leave and extension thereof, coupled with the application submitted by the petitioner for proceeding on voluntary retirement, it is evident that the petitioner had not admitted to the allegations so leveled against her in the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009. This, when considered with the applications being submitted by the petitioner from time to time, praying for grant of leave and extension thereof, coupled with the application submitted by the petitioner for proceeding on voluntary retirement, it is evident that the petitioner had not admitted to the allegations so leveled against her in the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009. Even if the statement made in the show-cause reply of the petitioner that she had involved in academic matters of SIMS, Lonavala, Maharashtra, is taken on its face value, the same by itself will not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner had admitted to the allegations so leveled against her, inasmuch as, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are also to the extent that she had misled the authorities by citing false health grounds for her absence from her duties, which admittedly, was not admitted to by the petitioner. 32. The petitioner further had, in her show-cause reply, laid out facts pertaining to the treatments received by her and her daughter and also disclosed reasons regarding the necessity of her stay at Pune, which was contended to be on the health grounds of herself and that of her daughter. 33. Having noticed the allegations so leveled against her and the reply so submitted thereto, by the petitioner, this Court would like to examine the enquiry report as submitted in the matter, on 23.10.2007. 34. The said enquiry report was admittedly, not an enquiry so conducted under the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964; rather, it was in the form of a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the anonymous complaint so received against the petitioner. The said fact is further evident from perusal of the list of documents as annexed to the said show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, wherein, at Serial No. 7, the said enquiry report is cited as one of the listed documents. The above aspect of the matter, would clarify that the enquiry as conducted leading to submission of the enquiry report dated 23.10.2007, was admittedly a preliminary enquiry and it was basing thereon, that the allegations and charge, leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, came to be so formulated. 35. The above aspect of the matter, would clarify that the enquiry as conducted leading to submission of the enquiry report dated 23.10.2007, was admittedly a preliminary enquiry and it was basing thereon, that the allegations and charge, leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, came to be so formulated. 35. It is a settled position of law that a preliminary enquiry report cannot form the basis for imposition of a penalty like dismissal from service against a delinquent and such preliminary enquiry report is only conducted to bring on record materials, facilitating the disciplinary authority to arrive at a conclusion as to whether, the allegations brought on record against the delinquent employee, a departmental proceeding is required to be so initiated. The said preliminary enquiry report, would assume a form of an evidence only when the same is proved in the manner so required in a proper enquiry held under the disciplinary rules holding the field, which in the present case, would be the Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964. Accordingly, the said preliminary enquiry report, having not assumed the form of evidence, cannot be relied upon, for the purpose of imposition of any penalty upon the petitioner. 36. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the order dated 30.07.2011. A perusal of the order dated 30.07.2011, would go to show that the decision to impose penalty of dismissal of service upon the petitioner, herein, was so arrived at by the disciplinary authority only on a consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, as well as the said preliminary enquiry report dated 23.10.2007. However, it is required to be noticed that in the order dated 30.07.2011, no finding came to be recorded that the petitioner had, in her show-cause reply, admitted the charges leveled against her. 37. Even if it is to be held that the order dated 30.07.2011, was so passed on an assumption that the petitioner had admitted her guilt in the show-cause reply submitted by her, the same would not be sustainable, inasmuch as, as noticed hereinabove, the petitioner in her show-cause reply had not admitted to the allegations so leveled against her and accordingly, the said reply could not have formed the basis of imposition of a penalty against the petitioner. 38. 38. A penalty, based on an admission in the show-cause reply is permissible, provided that there is a categorical admission on the part of the delinquent with regard to all the allegations leveled against him/her in a show-cause notice issued. The said position is not evident from a perusal of the show-cause reply as submitted in the matter by the petitioner and accordingly, in absence of a categorical admission by the petitioner of the allegations so leveled against her, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to construe an admission of guilt by the petitioner, in absence of any such admission existing in the show-cause reply as submitted by the petitioner. 39. Further, as already discussed herein above, the enquiry report dated 23.10.2007 was in the form of a preliminary enquiry report only; and the same cannot be said to have assumed the form of an evidence emanating in an enquiry, inasmuch as, the said enquiry report was not proved in the manner so required by holding a regular enquiry against the petitioner. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , has laid down the manner in which documentary evidence is required to be proved. The said decision mandates that the contents of documentary evidences are to be proved by examining witnesses, which in the present proceeding, would be the Enquiry Officer. There being no occasion arising for examining the author of the preliminary enquiry report, after providing to the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine such author, the enquiry report, admittedly, had not assumed the form of an evidence and the same could not have been so relied upon by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of imposition upon the petitioner of the penalty as imposed upon her, vide the notification dated 30.07.2011. 41. The above conclusions having been so drawn in the matter; the decisions as cited by the parties to the proceeding are not being alluded to. 42. In view of the above conclusions, the notification dated 30.07.2011, imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service along with the order of the appellate authority, issued vide the notification dated 18.01.2012, are set aside. 43. The notifications dated 30.07.2011 and 18.01.2012, having been set aside; this Court would examine the consequence of the same. 42. In view of the above conclusions, the notification dated 30.07.2011, imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service along with the order of the appellate authority, issued vide the notification dated 18.01.2012, are set aside. 43. The notifications dated 30.07.2011 and 18.01.2012, having been set aside; this Court would examine the consequence of the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Arora Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 593, has held that when a final order in a disciplinary proceeding is interfered with, all orders from the date of charge-sheet up to the date of passing of the final order becomes a nullity and redundant. Accordingly, the notifications dated 30.07.2011 and 18.01.2012, having been interfered with, the same would have the effect of also interfering with the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009 and accordingly, no departmental proceeding can be said to be pending against the petitioner. 44. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel had submitted that in the event, this Court, arrives at a conclusion to interfere with the notifications dated 30.07.2011 and 18.01.2012, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, be required to continue the proceedings against the petitioner from the stage, the same stood vitiated. However, this Court in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dharampal Arora (supra) having also interfered with the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009; it would not be permissible to accede to the said submissions as made by Mr. K. Gogoi. 45. Having reached the above conclusions, this Court would now examine as to whether, it would be permissible on the part of the disciplinary authority of the petitioner to institute fresh disciplinary proceedings against her, basing on the allegations, which were so leveled against her, vide the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009. The allegations, forming the basis of the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, relate to a period starting from the year 2006 and the petitioner had superannuated from her service in the year 2019. The allegations, forming the basis of the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009, relate to a period starting from the year 2006 and the petitioner had superannuated from her service in the year 2019. Accordingly, by applying the provisions of Rule 21 (b) (ii) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969; which mandates that no proceeding would be permissible to be instituted against a retired employee, which had so occasioned 04 years prior to the date of institution of such proceeding, it is held that it is not open for the disciplinary authority at present to institute any further proceedings against the petitioner, basing on the misconduct so alleged against her, vide the show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009. 46. Before proceeding to lay down the relief/reliefs the petitioner would now be entitled to, it is being noted by this Court that on account of her personal problems, the petitioner had remained absent from her services w.e.f., 17.01.2006, although for short duration she had resumed her service, till the issuance of the order dated 30.07.2011, imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, keeping in view the said factual position, the following directions are being passed: - (i) The Director of Technical Education, Assam shall ascertain the actual period(s) of absence of the petitioner during the period w.e.f., 17.01.2006 till 30.07.2011. On such period of absence being ascertained, the Director of Technical Education, Assam, shall regularize such periods with admissible leave available in the leave account of the petitioner. The balance period of such absence, beyond what was so regularized with admissible leave, shall be regularized by granting to the petitioner Extra Ordinary Leave. (ii) For the period of service rendered by the petitioner during the period w.e.f., 17.01.2006 to 30.07.2011, the petitioner shall be entitled to salaries, if not already paid, and also to leave salary, for the period so regularized by grant of admissible leave, excluding the period so regularized by way of grant of Extra Ordinary Leave. (iii) The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for the period w.e.f., 31.07.2011 till the date of superannuation of the petitioner from the services; however, she will not be entitled to any salaries for the said period. The Director of Technical Education, Assam shall notionally fix the pay and allowances of the petitioner during the said period for computation of the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits. The Director of Technical Education, Assam shall notionally fix the pay and allowances of the petitioner during the said period for computation of the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits. (iv) The periods w.e.f., 17.01.2006 to 30.07.2011 and w.e.f., 31.07.2011 till the date of superannuation of the petitioner, shall be reckoned for the purpose of computing the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. (v) The petitioner would be entitled to pension w.e.f., the date, next to the date of her superannuation from service. Accordingly, the Director of Technical Education, Assam, after complying with the directions (i) to (iv), hereinabove, shall finalize the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. (vi) The exercise as requisite to be undertaken for implementation of the directions passed by this Court at (i) to (v) above, shall be concluded by the Director of Technical Education, Assam within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amounts now due to the petitioner, on account of arrear salaries as well as pension and pensionary benefits, shall be released to the petitioner within an outer limit of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (vii) The petitioner, having already superannuated in the year 2019, the Director of Technical Education, Assam shall within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, authorize to the petitioner, a provisional pension. However, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, such authorization to the petitioner of her provisional pension, be so made w.e.f., 01.01.2024 and the same would be continued to be paid to the petitioner till finalization of her pension and pensionary benefits. 47. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.