JUDGMENT : (ROBIN PHUKAN, J.) Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. By this common judgment and order it is proposed to dispose of these two writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 1658/2022 and WP(C) No.4026/2023, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , as both are concerning the same parties and the reliefs being sought for are also related to each other. 3. In WP(C) No.1658/2022, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for refixing his pay scale as Assistant Teacher of L.P. School and also to direct the respondent authorities to disburse and release the monthly salary w.e.f. 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 with interest @18% per annum. 3.1. In WP(C) No.4026/2023, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2023 issued under Memo No.EHA-114/2018/257-A, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities to treat the period of suspension w.e.f. 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 as the petition spent on duty. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts leading to filing of the present writ petitions are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner was appointed as primary school teacher at Rigbi Government L.P. School, Jonai, Dhemaji, in the year 1988. After successful completion of his Basic Training Certificate Course in the year 1989, his service was regularized on 10.01.1990. Thereafter, due to his ailment, the petitioner could not attend his duties since the month of September, 1993 for which he was placed under suspension on 15.09.1994. Thereafter, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and he remained under suspension for a period of almost 25 years. Being left with no other option, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.825/2016 for reinstatement in his service. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, this Court was pleased to dispose of the same vide order dated 12.12.2018, on the basis of the statement made by the learned Standing Council for the Director of Elementary Education, Assam that as per record the petitioner was never placed under suspension. However, this Court had granted liberty to both the parties to act against each other. The petitioner then produced the order of this Court dated 12.12.2018, before the respondent authorities on 17.12.2018. But he was not allowed to join his duties. However, this Court had granted liberty to both the parties to act against each other. The petitioner then produced the order of this Court dated 12.12.2018, before the respondent authorities on 17.12.2018. But he was not allowed to join his duties. Then the petitioner had filed one application on 16.02.2019 to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. But the same also failed to evoke any response. Then, again he approached this Court by filing another writ petition, being WP(C) No.2352/2019 for appropriate relief. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by setting aside the suspension order dated 15.09.1994 and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department, vide letter dated 02.07.2019 under Memo No. AEE(CC) 07/2019/10-A directed the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to reinstate the petitioner considering the length of his suspension. Thereafter, on 13.08.2020, the petitioner was reinstated in his original post of Assistant Teacher at Rigbi Government L.P. School, Jonai, Dhemaji. Consequent upon, the petitioner was reinstated on 13.08.2020 as per order dated 13.08.2020 bearing Memo No. EHA-114/2018/175, issued by the Director of Elementary Education. But, vide another letter, dated 13.08.2020, bearing Memo No. EHA-114/2018/176, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam had issued first show cause notice to him. The petitioner had accordingly filed his reply, which was forwarded by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai on 19.08.2020, vide his letter under Memo No. DIS/JNI/MISC/33/2020, to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Thereafter, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam under Memo No. EHA-114/2018/196-A, intimated the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department that the petitioner was re- instated in his original post of Assistant Teacher at Rigbi Government L.P. School and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for payment of his monthly salary to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai had intimated the Director of Elementary Education, Assam that the petitioner has been re-instated as per the order dated 13.08.2020, under memo No. EHA-114/2018/175. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another petition to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for regularization of his services, through the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai had intimated the Director of Elementary Education, Assam that the petitioner has been re-instated as per the order dated 13.08.2020, under memo No. EHA-114/2018/175. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another petition to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for regularization of his services, through the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, under Memo No. AEE(CC) 07/2019/38-A, dated 08.03.2021 had requested the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to take necessary action against the petitioner as per Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, the Director Elementary Education, Assam vide Memo No. EHA- 114/2018/198-A had directed the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji to submit the draft charges and statement of allegation in respect of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai under Memo No. DIS/JNI/Misc/33/2021/435 served show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule-9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India . The petitioner then submitted his reply on 26.03.2021. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer( Block Elementary Education Officer) Murkong Selek submitted Inquiry Report to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji and he submitted his reply. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Assam directed the District Elementary Education Officer, Demaji and the petitioner to remain present in his Office Chamber on 09.08.2021. Finally, the respondent No.2 as per letter dated 28.09.2021 was pleased to communicate to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department suggesting to treat the unauthorized absence w.e.f. 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 as 'no work no pay' and thereafter, to regularize the period of suspension w.e.f. 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 and to obtain view of judicial department. But, the salary and the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was not paid. So, he again filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.1658/2022 and during the pendency of the aforementioned petition, the petitioner had retired from his service on 30.04.2022, as In-charge Headmaster of Rigbi Government L.P. School, Jonai. But, the salary and the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was not paid. So, he again filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.1658/2022 and during the pendency of the aforementioned petition, the petitioner had retired from his service on 30.04.2022, as In-charge Headmaster of Rigbi Government L.P. School, Jonai. And after his retirement, when the WP(C) No.1658/2022 was pending, the impugned order dated 12.05.2023, was passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, dismissing the petitioner from his service as per Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the DEEO, Dhemaji and treated the period of absence from duty i.e. w.e.f. 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 and from the date of suspension i.e. from 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020, as 'no work no pay'. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court again by filing another writ petition, being WP(C) No. No.4026/ 2023, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , praying for setting aside the impugned order, dated 12.05.2023, issued under Memo No.EHA-114/2018/257-A, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities to treat the period of suspension w.e.f. 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 as spent on duty. 5. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein a stand has been taken that though a direction was issued by this Court for releasing the subsistence allowance of the petitioner vide order dated 13.03.2023, in WP(C) No.1658/2022, the petitioner could not furnish any non-engagement certificate as per provision of FR-53(2) of FR & SR for the aforementioned period, for which the amount could not be released. 5.1. It is also stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as stipendiary teacher at fixed stipend of Rs.470/- per month, by the D.I. of Schools, Jonai on 08.01.1988 and in terms of the aforementioned appointment letter, the petitioner would be deputed to Junior Basic Training and after completion of the training he will be given regular scale of pay @ Rs.500-875/- per month and that the service of the petitioner was regularized by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Murkongselek. But, he is not the competent authority to regularize the service and that the Director of Elementary Education is only competent authority to regularize his service and that he remained absent from his duties w.e.f. 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 without any intimation and the School Management Committee has adopted one resolution on 14.09.1994 and communicated the D.I. of Schools, Jonai for taking necessary action. 5.2. Accordingly, he was placed under suspension on 15.09.1994 and thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his written statement on 22.06.2020, before the Directorate Level Enquiry Committee, wherein it has been stated that he could not submit medical leave application for the aforementioned period of unauthorized absence due to communication problem and that the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji, vide letter dated 03.04.2021, had forwarded the show- cause reply of the petitioner, wherein he stated that due to his weak health he could not attend the school and he had taken contradictory stand for his absence in the school and that the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji has conducted one enquiry and submitted the report on 01.04.2023. 5.3. Thereafter, two letters were issued to the petitioner enclosing the copy of the enquiry report directing him to submit the reply within 7 days and the enquiry report was duly received by the petitioner. But, no reply has been received and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji, the petitioner was dismissed from his service vide order dated 12.05.2023 and as he is dismissed from service, he is not entitled to any relief and also the subsistence allowance for non-furnishing the non-engagement certificate under FR-53(2) of the FR & SR and therefore, it is contended to dismiss these petitions. Submissions:- 6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order dated 15.09.1994, was not furnished to the petitioner and he received the same only on 12.12.2018, and thereafter, he approached this Court by filing writ petition and on the basis of the order passed in the said writ petition, he was reinstated and he was not informed about furnishing of non-engagement certificate under FR-54(b) of the FR & SR. Mr. Mr. Sinha submits that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.04.2022, and thereafter, also departmental proceeding continued against him and he was not furnished with the list of witnesses as contemplated in the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and also not given any opportunity to contest the said departmental proceeding and enquiry report was prepared behind his back and though a copy of the same was furnished to him, only 3 days? time was given to him and he could not furnish his reply within the aforementioned period as he was not granted subsistence allowance also for which he could not move to file the aforementioned reply and to circumvent the order passed by this Court for releasing his subsistence allowance, the authority has hurriedly conducted enquiry and failed to comply with Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and the relevant rules had not been complied with and as such, Mr. Sinha contended to set aside the impugned dismissal order and to direct the respondent authorities to release the service benefits to the petitioner, which he is legally entitled to. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that the petitioner had failed to furnish the non-engagement certificate for which the subsistence allowance could not be released to him. However, to a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Sarma admits that there is no record of informing the petitioner to furnish the non-engagement certificate. Mr. Sharma also submits that for unauthorized absence from the duty, disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner and then enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 12.05.2023. Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the arrear salary and the subsistence allowance, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors. , reported in 2013 (2) GLT 1094 7.1. However, to a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Sarma fairly submits that though there is record of furnishing the article of charges and the statement of allegation, there is no record to show that list of witnesses contemplated to examine in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was furnished to him. Further, to a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Sarma fairly submits that though there is record of furnishing the article of charges and the statement of allegation, there is no record to show that list of witnesses contemplated to examine in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was furnished to him. Further, to a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Sarma submits that there is no record of examination of any witnesses by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding. However, Mr. Sarma submits that there is no infirmity in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry report was duly furnished to the petitioner on 24.04.2023, but the petitioner failed to furnish any reply for which the respondent authorities has taken the decision ex-parte and dismissed the petitioner from service and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned dismissal order requiring any interference of this Court. 8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through these petitions and the documents placed on record and also perused the decision referred by learned Advocates of both the parties and I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Consideration:- 9. The basic fact herein these petitions are not disputed. The petitioner was appointed as primary school teacher at Rigbi Government L.P. School, Jonai, Dhemaji, in the year 1988. After successful completion of his Basic Training Certificate Course in the year 1989, his service was regularized on 10.01.1990. However, the petitioner could not attend his duties, since the month of September, 1993 for his ailment. He was placed under suspension on 15.09.1994. Thereafter, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He remained under suspension for a period of almost 25 years. The petitioner then filed WP(C) No.825/2016 for reinstatement in his service. This Court had disposed of the same vide order dated 12.12.2018, on the basis of submission made by the learned Standing Council for the Director of Elementary Education, Assam that the petitioner was never placed under suspension. But the petitioner was never allowed to join his duties. The petitioner then filed one application on 16.02.2019 to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam but he received no response. 9.1. But the petitioner was never allowed to join his duties. The petitioner then filed one application on 16.02.2019 to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam but he received no response. 9.1. The petitioner then filed WP(C) No.2352/2019, for appropriate relief, which was disposed of by this Court by setting aside the suspension order dated 15.09.1994 and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service. Consequently, the petitioner was re-instated on 13.08.2020. But, vide letter, dated 13.08.2020, under Memo No. EHA-114/2018/176, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam had issued first show cause notice to him. The petitioner had accordingly filed his reply. The petitioner had approached the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai for payment of his salaries but the same was not paid. Thereafter, as per direction of the Joint Secretary, Elementary Education Department, under Memo No. AEE(CC) 07/2019/38-A, dated 08.03.2021 had asked the Director of Elementary Education to take necessary action against the petitioner as per Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The Director then vide Memo No. EHA-114/2018/198-A had directed the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji to submit the draft charges and statement of allegation in respect of the petitioner. Then the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai under Memo No. DIS/JNI/Misc/33/2021/435, had served show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule-9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India . The petitioner then submitted his reply on 26.03.2021. Thereafter, the Block Elementary Education Officer, Murkong Selek who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, submitted Enquiry Report to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai. Then the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji and he submitted his reply. 9.2. It is also not in dispute that the salary and the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was not paid for which he again filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.1658/2022 and during the pendency of the aforementioned petition, the petitioner had retired from his service on 30.04.2022. 9.2. It is also not in dispute that the salary and the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was not paid for which he again filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.1658/2022 and during the pendency of the aforementioned petition, the petitioner had retired from his service on 30.04.2022. Then after his retirement, when the WP(C) No.1658/2022 was pending, the impugned order dated 12.05.2023, was passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, dismissing the petitioner from his service as per Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the DEEO, Dhemaji and treated the period of absence from duty i.e. from 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 and from the date of suspension i.e. from 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 treated as no work no pay. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed on suspension vide order dated 15.09.1994, for his unauthorized absence from duty since the month of September, 1993. Said suspension order remained in force till the same being set aside by this Court in WP(C) No.2352/2019, vide order dated 06.01.2020. Admittedly, the suspension order was not followed by any departmental proceeding. He was re-instated only on 13.08.2020. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him on the same day i.e. 13.08.2020, by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam enclosing statement of allegation, however, without the list of witnesses. Thus, formally the departmental proceeding appears to be drawn up only on 13.08.2020, after delay of 25 years. Delay and Its Consequence Upon Disciplinary Proceedings:- 11. Now, let it be seen the consequence of inordinate delay in initiation of departmental proceeding. This issue was dealt with by Hon?ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The important decisions are being discussed herein below. 11.1. In the case of State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Bani Singh, reported in 1990 Supp SCC 738 , Hon?ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "The irregularities which were the subject -matter of the enquiry are said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 11.2. Thereafter, in the case of the State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan , reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 , it has been held as under:- " 19 . It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse conside rations." Thereafter, it has been held that – "T here was hardly any explanation worth consideration as to why the delay occurred. In the circumstances, this Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 31-7-1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed." 11.3. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 , Hon?ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 10. Section 118 specifically provides for submission of the abstracts of the accounts at the end of every year and Section 119 relates to annual audit of accounts. These two statutory provisions have not been complied with at all. In the instant case the transaction took place in the year 1990. The expenditure ought to have been considered in the accounts of the succeeding year. In the instant case the audit report was ultimately released in 1994-95. The explanation offered for the delay in finalising the audit account cannot stand scrutiny in view of the above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1961. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel is appearing for the respondent. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel is appearing for the respondent. His submission that the period from the date of commission of the irregularities by the appellant to the date on which it came to the knowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delay on the part of the Board in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant has no merit and force. The stand now taken by the respondent in this Court in the counter-affidavit is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay. 11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs." 12. The legal proposition, that can be crystallized from the discussion made herein above, is that (i) There must be acceptable explanation on the side of the authority, explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs." 12. The legal proposition, that can be crystallized from the discussion made herein above, is that (i) There must be acceptable explanation on the side of the authority, explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. (ii) The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. (iii) As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the employee due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. (iv) For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the employee should not be made to suffer. (v) Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated, each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. (vi) The court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. (vii) The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. (viii) In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. (ix) It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. (x) Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.? 13. In the instant case, having gone through the affidavit in opposition, this Court is unable to find any explanation, let alone a plausible one, for inordinate delay of 25 years in initiating disciplinary proceeding against him. As stated herein above, the petitioner was placed on suspension on 15.09.1994. (x) Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.? 13. In the instant case, having gone through the affidavit in opposition, this Court is unable to find any explanation, let alone a plausible one, for inordinate delay of 25 years in initiating disciplinary proceeding against him. As stated herein above, the petitioner was placed on suspension on 15.09.1994. Admittedly, the suspension order did not followed by any departmental proceeding. The order of suspension was revoked as per order of this Court in WP(C) No.2352/2019, vide order dated 06.01.2020. He was re-instated only on 13.08.2020. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him on the same day i.e. 13.08.2020. Thereafter, proceeding was drawn up which culminated in passing of impugned order dated 12.05.2023, by which the petitioner was dismissed from his service and treated the period of absence of duty, from 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 as no work no pay. For 25 long years the suspension order was in force and no disciplinary proceeding was drawn up. The affidavit, so filed by the respondent authority is hopelessly silent on this point, as to what prevents them from initiating the proceeding against the petitioner and why they slept over the matter for long 25 years and let the petitioner suffer for his entire life. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that delay of long 25 years in initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner caused serious prejudice to him. The Procedure, followed in Disciplinary Proceedings:- 14. The procedure to be followed in disciplinary proceedings is generally laid down in Service Rules and Standing Orders made there under. The petitioner herein was governed by the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964. But, the procedure, so laid down in the said Rules, is subordinate to the provisions of the Constitution of India and cannot be ultra-vires to the provisions of Article 310, 311 etc. It is also well settled that the principles of natural justice has to be followed. Thus, reasonable opportunity to defend him must be given to the person against whom departmental proceedings have been initiated. 15. It is also well settled that the principles of natural justice has to be followed. Thus, reasonable opportunity to defend him must be given to the person against whom departmental proceedings have been initiated. 15. It also appears that Article 311(2) of the Constitution provides as under: (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 16. Thus, this Article makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The Article, however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the employee. 17. The procedure, being followed in the disciplinary proceeding against a public servant, for imposing penalties, has to go through various steps. From the Service Rules and from Office Memorandum concerning the subject, following stages can be culled out:- (i) Lodging of a complaint or making allegations of misconduct against the Govt. servant; (ii) Holding of preliminary enquiry; (iii) Consideration of report of preliminary enquiry by the disciplinary authority; (iv) Show cause notice to the delinquent officials who is prima-facie held to be responsible in the preliminary enquiry; (v) Reply of the employee to the show cause notice; (vi) Issuance of charge sheet to the delinquent official, if reply is considered unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority; (vii) Reply of the employee to the charge sheet. Scrutiny of the reply by the disciplinary authority; (viii) Appointment of Enquiry Officer i.e. order for regular inquiry and nomination of presenting officer; (ix) Legal assistance for defence; (x) Attendance and examination of witnesses; (xi) Submission of inquiry report by the Enquiry Officer; (xii) Show cause notice to the delinquent employee; (xiii) Submission of reply and consideration of the same along with his past record; (xiv) Penalty proposed; (xv) Final order; (xvi) Service appeal, if any; Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 :- 17.1. The petitioner herein is governed by Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964, prescribed the procedure for imposing penalties. 9. The petitioner herein is governed by Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964, prescribed the procedure for imposing penalties. 9. Procedure for imposing penalties- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servant (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. [“ At the time of delivering the charges, the Disciplinary Authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained. ” (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 case 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 inquiry into such of the charge 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). (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, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated 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. (6) The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The Government servant shall be entitled to cross-examine 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 material, 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 thereof. (8) The record of the inquiry shall include- (i) 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 orders, 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 charge 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 finding on each charge. (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its finding on each charge. (10) Major Penalties - If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on the charges and on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 7 should be imposed on the Government servant it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty on the Government servant. The Impugned Dismissal Order:- 18. Now, let it be seen how, the respondent authority had conducted the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. To appreciate the contention of the parties, we deemed it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned Order, dated 12.05.2023, as under:- GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 No . EHA-114/2018/257 Dated Kahilipara, the 12th May/2023 ORDER Perused : Perused the Hon'ble High Court order dtd. 06.01.2020 passed in WP(C)No.2352/2019 titled Takar Ete-Vs-State of Assam & others wherein the Hon'ble Court had observed that as the very appointment of the petitioner is under question, this court is of the view that it is an aspect which can be decided by the authorities in accordance with law. Also Read (1) The enquiry report in connection with Departmental Proceeding drawn- up against Sri Takar Ete, Retd. Asstt. Teacher of Rigbi Govt. L.P. School under Dhemaji district as submitted by the DEEO, Dhemaji vide her letter No. DEEO/DMJ/HC-70/2018/2189 dtd. 01.04.2023 alongwith the statement of allegation of charges formulated under the said Departmental Proceeding and the reply of Sri Takar Ete to the show cause notice. (2) The statement submitted by the petitioner Sri Takar Ete at the time of hearing in the office of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dtd.22.06.2020 and show cause reply submitted before the DEEO, Dhemaji did. 01.07.2021. (2) The statement submitted by the petitioner Sri Takar Ete at the time of hearing in the office of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dtd.22.06.2020 and show cause reply submitted before the DEEO, Dhemaji did. 01.07.2021. (3) The letters issued to the petitioner vide this office letter No.EHA-114/2018/252 dtd. 24.04.2023 and No.EHA-114/2018/253 dtd. 03.05.2023 for submission of written reply against the finding in the enquiry report submitted by the DEEO, Dhemaji vide letter No. DEEO/DMJ/HC-70/2018/2189 dtd. 01.04.2023 for finalization of Departmental Proceeding. (4) The Acknowledgement of this office letter No. EHA-114/2018/252 dtd.24.04.2023 and No. EHA-114/2018/253 dtd. 03.05.2023 showing receipt by Sri Takar Ete on 25.04.2023 and 10.05.2023. (5) The Govt. letter issued to DEE, Assam vide No. AEE(CC)07/2019/93 dtd. 26.07.2022. Findings : In the show cause notice, 2(two) specific charges were levelled against Sri Takar Ete. The Enquiry Officer i.e. Dy. Inspector of Schools, Jonai and the Presenting Officer i.e. BEEO, Murkongselek had conducted the enquiry fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges formulated against Sri Takar Ete as established beyond any doubt. It is seen from the enquiry report that Sri Takar Ete, Retd. Asstt. Teacher of Rigbi Govt. L.P. School remained absent in school from duty w.e.f. 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 at his own will and even he had not felt the necessity for submission of any application seeking leave of absence to the school authority or any immediate higher authority. This is also reflected in the proceeding of Executive Meeting of the SMC of Rigbi Govt. L.P. School dtd. 14.09.1994. The unauthorised absence in School of Takar Ete is gross negligence of duty and responsibility and violation of conduct of service rule. It is also observed that show cause notice was served to Sri Takar Ete by the Dy. Inspector of Schools, Jonai vide No. Misc/32/94/1004-05 dtd. 16.08.1994 for his unauthorized absence from duty as reflected in the suspension order issued by the Dy. Inspector of Schools, Jonai vide order No. ATL/6/94/1204-07 dtd. 15.09.1994. But, Sri Takar Ete did not submit his reply to the show cause notice served upon him. It seems a wilful and habitual negligence of duties on the part of Sri Takar Ete. Sri Takar Ete is solely responsible for non-reporting for duties and also for his absence from duties for the long period. 15.09.1994. But, Sri Takar Ete did not submit his reply to the show cause notice served upon him. It seems a wilful and habitual negligence of duties on the part of Sri Takar Ete. Sri Takar Ete is solely responsible for non-reporting for duties and also for his absence from duties for the long period. It is observed that Sri Takar Ete had approached the authority only in the year 2015 though he was suspended in the year 1994. It is also observed that Sri Takar Ete did not furnish any application alongwith non-engagement certificate under provision of F.R. Rule 53(2) of F.R.s & S.R.s for grant of subsistence allowances during suspension period. Further, Director of Elementary Education, Assam has issued 2 (two) letters to Sri Takar Ete vide No. EHA-114/2018/252 dtd. 24.04.2023 and No. EHA-114/2018/253 dtd. 03.05.2023 enclosing the copy of enquiry report submitted by the DEEO, Dhemaji vide her letter No. DEEO/DMJ/HC- 70/2018/2189 dtd. 01.04.2023 to submit his written reply against the findings of the enquiry report as to why the penalty prescribed in Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1964 should not be imposed upon him. Even in the last letter of this office vide No. EHA-114/2018/253 dtd. 03.05.2023, the petitioner, Sri Takar Ete was informed that if reply is not submitted within specified time period, ex- parte decision will be taken in the matter. The aforesaid letters dtd. 24.04.2023 and 03.05.2023 were received by Sri Takar Ete on 25.04.2023 and 10.05.2023 respectively. But, so far no reply has been received from Takar Ete in defence. It is also observed that, the Govt. had issued a letter to Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide No. AEE(CC)07/2019/93 dtd. 26.07.2022, wherein Govt, has directed that the Departmental Proceeding that has already been initiated against Takar Ete should reach its logical conclusion and on the outcome of the Departmental Proceeding, appropriate action may be taken against Sri Takar Ete as per law. Moreover, after examining the available records, it is also seen that Sri Takar Ete had submitted two different written statement before the DEE, Assam and the DEEO, Dhemaji. In the hearing conducted on 22.06.2020 in the office of the DEE, Assam, Sri Takar Ete had submitted his written statement before the authority wherein it is stated that he could not attend school from November/1993 due to his physical illness. In the hearing conducted on 22.06.2020 in the office of the DEE, Assam, Sri Takar Ete had submitted his written statement before the authority wherein it is stated that he could not attend school from November/1993 due to his physical illness. He could not submit medical leave application to the Head Master of the school due to problem of communication. He also stated that he could not submit his show cause reply served to him by the then D.I.S, Jonai. On the other hand, in his reply submitted before the DEEO, Dhemaji on 01.07.2021, Sri Takar Ete stated that he had submitted prayer petition to the Dy. Inspector of Schools, Jonai through his family member praying for leave on medical ground. Further, he stated that he was unknown about any show cause notice served to him and no show cause notice was received by him. From the above, it is revealed that both the statements of Sri Takar Ete is contradictory in nature and he has tried to misguide the authority. Further, it is seen that Sri Takar Ete has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022. However, the departmental proceeding was initiated against Sri Tarak Ete during the period of his service and the same has been continued after his retirement and as such the departmental proceeding initiated against Sri Takar Ete is deemed to be a proceeding under Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Order : In view of the above, it is concluded that the petitioner, Sri Takar Ete, Retd. Asstt. Teacher of Rigbi Govt. L.P. School has failed to give any explanation against the finding of the enquiry. He was found absent without leave, permission or authority from his duties w.e.f. 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 and without informing the school authority or any immediate higher authority. The petitioner, Sri Takar Ete never approached before the authority from the date of suspension upto the year 2015, even he never approached the higher authority for his subsistence allowances during the suspension period by submitting application along with non-engagement certificate as per F.R. Rules 53(2) of FRs & S.R.s. Sri Takar Ete has also tried to misguide the authority by submitting contradictory statement before two different higher authority once at the time of hearing and previously while submitting his show cause reply. Hence, the undersigned finds that Sri Takar Ete has committed acts of serious misconduct by remaining absent without leave or authority and moreover, upon being given opportunity to explain his conduct, he has tried to mislead the authorities. Keeping in view the misconduct committed by Sri Takar Ete, Retd. Asstt. Teacher of Rigbi Govt. L.P. School, he is hereby dismissed from service as per Rule 7 of Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1964. The period of his unauthorised absence from duty i.e. on 01.11.1993 till the date he was placed under suspension shall be treated as dies non. The period spent under suspension by Sri Takar Ete shall be treated as such and he will not be entitled for any subsistence allowances during his suspension period in the absence of any claim that he was not otherwise engaged during that period. Sd/- Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19 Dated Kahilipara, the 12th May/2023 19. Indisputably, after the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, after his reinstatement in service pursuant to order of this Court, and during the pendency of the said proceeding, the petitioner had retired from service on 30.04.2022. Thereafter, the proceeding continued against him under Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 20. It also appears that while initiating departmental proceeding, show- cause notice was issued to him and the petitioner had submitted his reply. Thereafter, having been not satisfied with the same, article of charges and the statement of allegation was also furnished to him, however, no list of witnesses was furnished to him. Further, it appears from the impugned order, dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure-XXVII in WP(C) No.4026/2023) and the relevant File of the Department, produced before this Court by the learned standing counsel for the respondent authority that no witnesses was examined in the proceeding and there is also no record of participation of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry proceeding. However, the Enquiry Report, so furnished by the Dy. Inspector of Schools, Jonai (Enquiry Officer) (Annexure- XXIII in WP(C) No.4026/2023) it had relied upon the statement of the petitioner herein but it is not clear whether it was the verbal or written statement of the petitioner. If it was the written statement, then it is certain that he had not participated in the proceeding. There is also no indication in the Enquiry Report that any document was exhibited by the Presenting Officer. If it was the written statement, then it is certain that he had not participated in the proceeding. There is also no indication in the Enquiry Report that any document was exhibited by the Presenting Officer. That being so, the report was prepared ex-parte without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 21. Further, it appears from the letter dated 22.07.2021, of the Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Assam (Annexure-XIX in WP(C) No.4026/2023) that one Directorate Level Enquiry Committee was also constituted and the said Committee has submitted a report after hearing the matter in the office of the Dy. Director on 09.08.2021 and the petitioner and District Elementary Education Officer, and the Dy. Inspector of Schools, Dhemaji were directed to remain present in the hearing. But, unfortunately, such an enquiry is not contemplated under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 . 22. It also appears that the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the said Enquiry Report vide letter dated 24.04.2023, and he was asked to submit his written reply within seven days as to why the penalty prescribed in Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 on the basis of the said Enquiry Report. Thereafter, on 3 rd of May 2023 the Director, Elementary Education had sent another letter to the petitioner to submit his reply within three days. Then on 10.05.2023 the petitioner had filed an application to the Director, Elementary Education for extension of time of at least 10 days from 14.05.2023, to submit his reply as he was suffering from chronic dysentery. But, no time was granted to him and the impugned order was passed ex-parte on 12.05.2023, dismissing the petitioner from service and also by holding that the period under suspension shall be treated as dies non and he will not be entitled to any subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension in the absence of any claim that he was not otherwise engaged during that period. Subsistence Allowance and the Rule and Precedents:- 23. Subsistence Allowance and the Rule and Precedents:- 23. As stated herein above for non-payment of the salary and the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, after his re-instatement, he again filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.1658/2022, wherein vide order dated 13.03.2023, a co-ordinate bench of this Court was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner with effect from 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 within 45 days from that day, however, the same was also not been paid to the petitioner. 24. And to circumvent the said order, dated 13.03.2023, the impugned order dated 12.05.2023, was passed hurriedly even without taking note of the fact that the petitioner hails from Jonai, a place located at a distance of about 523/ km from Guwahati, where the Office of the Director is located and he had already retired from service and not been paid any pensionary benefit as well as subsistence allowance. 25. At this juncture, it is appropriate to discuss the principles laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court in respect of the effect of non-payment of subsistence allowance. It is well settled that an order of suspension never puts an end to the service of an employee. He is only not entitled to the salary but is eligible to get the subsistence allowance. In the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in MANU/SC/0408/1962 , it has been held that the effect of an order of suspension is that though the employee continues to be a member of the service he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance which is less than his salary. This principle was reiterated in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. , reported in MANU/SC/0241/1977 . It is also settled that subsistence allowance is governed by the service rules. It has to be given to a suspended employee for his sustenance. It is in a way making a provision for maintenance and survival. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in MANU/SC/0670/1987 , it has been stated that the very expression "subsistence allowance" has an undeniable penal significance. It basically means-a means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. It is in a way making a provision for maintenance and survival. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in MANU/SC/0670/1987 , it has been stated that the very expression "subsistence allowance" has an undeniable penal significance. It basically means-a means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. It has also been observed as under:- "It is a clear principle of natura l justice that the delinquent officer when placed under suspension is entitled to represent that the departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and within a reasonable period of time. If such a principle were not to be recognized, it would imply that the Executive is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration. 25.1. In Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer and Anr. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1168 , while dealing with the issue of denial of subsistence allowance during a proceeding before an Industrial Tribunal, Hon?ble Supreme Court expressed that if no amount is paid during the pendency of such an application it has to be held that the workman concerned has been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings before the Tribunal and such denial leads to violation of principles of natural justice and consequently vitiates the proceedings before the Tribunal under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Act and any decision given in those proceedings against the workman concerned. 25.2. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 , Hon?ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that when on account of penury, occasioned by non- payment of subsistence allowance an employee is not able to undertake a journey to attend the disciplinary proceedings, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on such proceedings which are held ex-parte, stand vitiated. 25.3. In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. , reported in AIR 2000 SC 2806 , it has been held that the payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. 25.3. In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. , reported in AIR 2000 SC 2806 , it has been held that the payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. It is a right and if a suspended employee is unable to appear for want of funds on account of non- payment of subsistence allowance, it is a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice on account of the denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry and that vitiates the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of removal from service. It is seemly to state here that in the said case the employee had intimated the authorities about the financial crunch. 25.4. It is however a fact that prejudice has to be pleaded and proved and it is well settled that mere non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot ipso facto be a ground to vitiate the proceedings in every case. It has to be specifically pleaded and established as to in what way the affected employee is handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence allowance. In the case in hand, the petitioner had instituted numbers of writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 825/2016 and WP(C) No.2352/2019 seeking his reinstatement and salaries etc. In the present case, from the facts discussed above it is clearly reveals that the subsistence allowance was not paid during entire period covering 25 years and also the salary, that was due to the petitioner was not paid after his reinstatement. The petitioner had submitted number of representations with regard to the same, but the same failed to evoke any response. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner herein. 26. In this context reference to F.R. 53, which deals with subsistence allowance is required to be made. F.R. 53. The petitioner had submitted number of representations with regard to the same, but the same failed to evoke any response. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner herein. 26. In this context reference to F.R. 53, which deals with subsistence allowance is required to be made. F.R. 53. (1), A Government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority shall be entitled to the following payments, namely :— (i) in the case of a Commissioned Officer of the Indian Medical Department or a Warrant Officer in Civil employ who is liable to revert to Military duty, the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he been suspended while in military employment; (ii) in the case Of any other Government servant— (a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows : (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant; (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount, not allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant; (iii) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. (b) Any other compensatory allowances admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances. (2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employ omit, business, profession or vocation : Provided that in the case of a Government servant dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, who is deemed to have been placed or to continue to be under suspension from the date of such dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement, under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and who fails to produce such a certificate for any period or periods during which he is deemed to be placed or to continue to be under suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and other allowances equal to the amount by which his earnings during such period or periods, as the case may be, short of the amount of subsistence allowance and other allowances that would otherwise be admissible to him; where the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible to him are equal to or less than the amount earned by him, nothing in this proviso shall apply to him. 27. Besides, as discussed herein above, the list of witnesses have not been furnished to the petitioner and no witnesses have been examined and no documents, whatsoever, was exhibited to establish the charges. Mr. P.N. Sharma, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, also from the record produced before the Court could not show that the petitioner had participated in the proceeding, and whether proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner during the proceeding to defend him. 28. Admittedly, however, the petitioner had received the Enquiry Report along with two show cause notice as to why punishment prescribed in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 be not inflicted upon him. But, he could not file his response on account of his illness and he filed one application for extension of time to submit his reply. But, the same failed to evoke any response and ultimately he was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.05.2023. But, he could not file his response on account of his illness and he filed one application for extension of time to submit his reply. But, the same failed to evoke any response and ultimately he was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.05.2023. Dismissal & the Requirement of Compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice: 29. It is not in dispute that the penalty of dismissal from service, so imposed upon the petitioner, is a major penalty. Now, the question is, whether imposing of such a penalty, after conducting the inquiry in such a slipshod manner, as discussed herein above, without furnishing list of witnesses and without examining any witness, without exhibiting any documents, and without hearing him on the punishment proposed, withstands the test of legality. 29.1 . To get this answer, we have to go over to the precedents. In the case of Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen , reported in AIR 1963 SC 1719, Hon?ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and its requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted." 29.2. Again in the case of S. C. Cirotra vs. United Commercial Bank, reported in MANU/SC/1164/1995, the Supreme Court had set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses. 29.3. In the case of the State of U. P. vs. C. S. Sharma , reported in AIR 1968 SC. 158 , Hon?ble Supreme Court has held that omission to give opportunity to the Officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry, witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. 29.4. The Court also held that in the enquiry, witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. 29.4. In the case of Punjab National Bank vs. AIPNBE Federation., reported in AIR 1960 SC 160 (vide para 66), Hon?ble Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen , reported in MANU/SC/0159/1963 , and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen , reported in 1963 II LLJ 78 , also. 29.5. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry, the employer cannot straight away dismiss him, but he must hold an ex-parte enquiry, where evidence must be lead, as held by Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Imperial Tobacco Co, Ltd. vs. Its workmen, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1348 , and in Uma Shanker vs. Registrar, reported in 1992 (651) FLR 674. 29.6. It is needless to emphasize that a dismissal order has serious consequences and it should be passed only after complying with the rules of natural justice. Since in the present case, the enquiry was conducted defying the procedure, as contemplated under the Rules, and no evidence was lead in the presence of the petitioner, nor was he given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him or lead his own evidence, nor any documents being exhibited in support of the charge, simply on the basis of the alleged statement of the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order, dated 12.05.2023, was passed and as such, to the considered opinion of this Court, and in view of the precedents discussed herein above, the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. The Principle of No. Work and No Pay and It ’ s Application:- 30. In the case in hand, in the impugned dismissal order dated 12.05.2023, issued under Memo No. EHA-114/2018/257-A, the respondent authority had applied the principle of “no work no pay” to deny not only the salary during the period of suspension but also the subsistence allowance for the said period. In the case in hand, in the impugned dismissal order dated 12.05.2023, issued under Memo No. EHA-114/2018/257-A, the respondent authority had applied the principle of “no work no pay” to deny not only the salary during the period of suspension but also the subsistence allowance for the said period. This principle is found in proviso to F.R. 17(1), which read as under:- "F.R. 17. (1) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties: Provided that an officer who is absent from duty unauthorisedly shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence." 30.1. Now, what left to be seen is whether, in fact, this principle is applicable in the case in hand or not. The issue of application of this principle has been dealt with by Hon?ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions, and at this juncture this Court deemed it proper to discuss some of them to decide the controversy at hand with precision. 30.2. In the case of Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah , reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689 , Hon?ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 34. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is ‚no work no pay?. In appropriate cases, however, a court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering ‚as if he had worked?. It, therefore, cannot be con tended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a court of law and if such directions are issued by a court, the authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected." 30.3. In the case of J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 559 , Hon?ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 3. The short question is whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice of three months submitted by him on 3-10- 1989 which was to come into effect from 31-1- 1990. It is true that this proposal was accepted by the authorities on 2-11-1989. But, thereafter before 31-1-1990 was reached, the appellant wrote a letter to withdraw his voluntary retirement proposal. This letter is dated 11-12-1989. The said request permitting him to withdraw the voluntary retirement proposal was not accepted by the respondents by communication dated 26-12- 1989. The appellant, therefore, went to the Tribunal but the Tribunal gave him no relief and took the view that the voluntary retirement had come into force on 31-1-1990 and the appellant had given up the charge of the post as per his memo relinquishing the charge and consequently, he was estopped from withdrawing his voluntary retirement notice. In our view the said reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on the facts of the case. It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India [1987 Supp SCC 228]. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court it cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before 31-1-1990. It is to be noted that once the request for cancellation of voluntary retirement was rejected by the authority concerned on 26-12-1989 and when the retirement came into effect on 31-1-1990 the appellant had no choice but to give up the charge of the post to avoid unnecessary complications. He, however, approached the Tribunal with the main grievance centering round the rejection of his request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement proposal. The Tribunal, therefore, following the decision of this Court ought to have granted him the relief. He, however, approached the Tribunal with the main grievance centering round the rejection of his request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement proposal. The Tribunal, therefore, following the decision of this Court ought to have granted him the relief. We accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as the order of the authorities dated 26-12-1989 and directed the respondents to treat the appellant to have validly withdrawn his proposal for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1990. The net result of this order is that the appellant will have to be treated to be in service till the date of his superannuation which is said to be somewhere in 1994 when he completed 58 years of age. The respondent-authorities will have to make good to the appellant all monetary benefits by treating him to have continuously worked till the date of his actual superannuation in 1994. This entitles him to get all arrears of salary and other emoluments including increments and to get his pensionary benefits refixed accordingly. However, this will have to be subject to adjustment of any pension amount and other retirement benefits already paid to the appellant in the meantime up to the date of his actual superannuation. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-authorities that no back salary should be allowed to the appellant as the appellant did not work and therefore, on the principle of ‚no work, no pay?, this amount should not be given to the appellant. This submission of learned Senior Counsel does not bear scrutiny as the appellant was always ready and willing to work, but the respondents did not allow him to work after 31-1-1990. The respondents are directed to make available all the requisite monetary benefits to the appellant as per the present order within a period of 8 weeks on the receipt of copy of this order at their end. Office shall send the same to the respondents at the earliest. 30.4. In case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman , reported in (1991) AIR (SCW) 2276 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of ‚no work no pay? Office shall send the same to the respondents at the earliest. 30.4. In case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman , reported in (1991) AIR (SCW) 2276 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of ‚no work no pay? is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases." 31. The legal proposition, that can be crystallized from the aforesaid decision is that the principle ' No work, no pay ’ is applicable only when an employee is absent due to his own act or omission/fault. But, when the employee is kept away from the work by an act or omission on the part of the employer, the employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of ‘ No Work No Pay ’ 31.1. In the case in hand, from the pleading in WP(C) No. 4026/2023, specially in para No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, it becomes apparent that the petitioner suffered from serious illness, for which he could not attend duties for some days, in the month of September, 1993. After his recovery he went to resume his duty and also filed leave application, with medical certificate, before the Head Master of the School. But, the Head Master informed him that he was placed under suspension. However, said suspension order could not be produced before him. It is also stated thereafter, on several occasions, he had visited the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai and also the Office of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Jonai, but on each occasion the authority denied to provide any information or a copy of the suspension order to him on this or that pretext. And he was not allowed to join in service. 31.2. Later on, he was informed that the post, in which he was appointed was filled up by another person, and therefore, he is no longer in service. And he was not allowed to join in service. 31.2. Later on, he was informed that the post, in which he was appointed was filled up by another person, and therefore, he is no longer in service. Thereafter, he did run from pillar to post and visited several authorities, on various occasion, but, the same failed to yield any result. Thereafter, with the help of one Non-Governmental Organization, in the name and style of Gonotrantrik Nagarik Suroksha Moncha (GNSM) one application was filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act before the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai and only then, vide his letter, dated 21.09.2015 (Annexure-IV in WP(C) No.4026/2023), it was informed him that he was placed under suspension. Then he filed another representation (Annexure-V in WP(C) No.4026/2023) before the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jonai on 01.10.2015, for reinstatement in service, but the same failed to evoke any response. And being left with no other option, he preferred WP(C) No. 825/2016. 31.3. The respondent No.2, in her affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) No.4026/2023, neither denied nor admitted the aforesaid statement and averment of the petitioner and the documents referred by him in para No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Rather, in para No. 6 of the affidavit, respondent No.2 had stated that she had no comment to made in respect of the para No. 1,2,7, to 11,14,15, 24, 25, 35 to 38. 31.4. Thus, the uncontroverted statement and averment made by the petitioner in para No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, in WP(C) No. 4026/2023, goes a long way to show that the petitioner had been kept away from the work by an act or omission on the part of the respondent authorities. Though he could not attend his duty on account of serious ailment in the month of September, 1993, after his recovery, he went to resume his duty and filed leave application with medical certificate before the Head Master of the School, and he was informed that he was placed under suspension but the suspension order was not furnished to him. 31.5. Thus, it was the fault/omission on the part of the respondent authorities, for which the petitioner could not join in service, after his recovery from ailment. His willingness to attend the duty is writ large from his conduct. 31.5. Thus, it was the fault/omission on the part of the respondent authorities, for which the petitioner could not join in service, after his recovery from ailment. His willingness to attend the duty is writ large from his conduct. That being so, and drawing premises from the decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court, and as discussed in the foregoing para, it can logically be concluded that the petitioner cannot be denied salary on the principle of ' No Work No Pay' 32. To recapitulate, on the following grounds the impugned termination order, dated 12.05.2023, issued under Memo No.EHA-114/2018/257-A, is liable to be interfered with:- (i) There was inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner; (ii) The petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during the entire suspension period for which the petitioner could not properly defend himself in the disciplinary proceeding; (iii) The disciplinary proceeding was conducted in slipshod manner; (iv) The petitioner was not furnished with the list of witnesses and no witnesses have been examined and no documents, whatsoever, was exhibited to establish the charge. The learned standing counsel for the respondent, also from the record he has produced before the Court, could not show that the petitioner had participated in the proceeding, and whether proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner during the proceeding so as to defend himself; (v) Before passing the impugned dismissal order dated 12.05.2023, the petitioner was admittedly not heard by the respondent No.2. The petitioner though made a request to extend time to file his response on account of his illness by filing an application, but the same was denied; 33. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed granting following relief(s) to the petitioner:- (i) The impugned termination order dated 12.05.2023, issued under Memo No.EHA-114/2018/257-A, stands set aside and quashed; (ii) The period of suspension, i.e. from 15.09.1994 till 13.08.2020, shall be treated as on duty and he shall be paid full salary for the same, as the principle of ‘ No Work, No Pay, ? is already held to be inapplicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case; (iii) The period of alleged unauthorized absence from 01.11.1993 till 14.09.1994, on account of his illness and for which he had filed an application with medical certificate, shall be regularized by granting/adjusting the kind of leave due to him and he shall be paid the salary, due to him, for the said period. (iv) As the petitioner shall be paid full salary from the date of his suspension till his reinstatement, there is requirement of payment of subsistence allowance and the prayer of the petitioner in this regard stands mitigated; (v) Further, the respondent authorities shall pay full salary to the petitioner from the date of his reinstatement i.e. 13.08.2020, till his retirement on 30.04.2022, if not paid earlier; (vi) The respondent authority shall grant all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, to which he is legally entitled to. (vii) And this exercise has to be carried out with in a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 2 within one week from today. (viii) Since the petitioner was compelled by the respondent authorities to approach this Court repeatedly, the respondent authority, specially, respondent No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ as cost to the petitioner within the stipulated period. (ix) The Commissioner and Secretary, School Education Department shall conduct an enquiry as to how the petitioner remained on suspension for a period of 25 years and shall thereafter, take remedial measures so that no one suffer prejudice in the hands of some unscrupulous officials of the department. 34. Now, let it be seen whether the petitioner is entitled to any other equitable relief. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances discussed herein above that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.04.2022. He was placed under suspension on 15.09.1994. Thereafter, for the act/omission of the respondent authorities, no disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him till 13.08.2020, for long 25 years. Even he was not furnished with the suspension order. He did run from pillar to post for resuming duties and for his salary and subsistence allowance. The respondent authorities paid no heed to same. Thereafter, for the act/omission of the respondent authorities, no disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him till 13.08.2020, for long 25 years. Even he was not furnished with the suspension order. He did run from pillar to post for resuming duties and for his salary and subsistence allowance. The respondent authorities paid no heed to same. Being left with no option, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.825/2016, for his reinstatement in his service, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2018, on the basis of the statement made by the learned Standing Council for the Director Elementary Education, Assam that as per record the petitioner was never placed under suspension. The respondent authority themselves not aware of their own order of suspension of the petitioner, that was passed long back on 15.09.1994. Despite intervention of this Court, in number of writ petitions, filed by the petitioner, he was not paid subsistence allowance not to speak of the salaries. Disciplinary proceeding was conducted in a slipshod manner and by an apparent illegal order, dated 12.05.2023, he was dismissed from service. The order of this Court for payment of subsistence allowances to the petitioner also stands circumvented. This callousness and high handedness of the respondent authorities made the petitioner to suffer till his retirement on 30.04.2022, since the date of his suspension. His human rights, his fundamental rights and all other rights stands violated in the hand of the state respondents. 35. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that a valuable right is accrued upon the petitioner to get interest upon his unpaid salaries and pensionary benefits. On equitable consideration also the petitioner is entitled to interest upon the salaries, which he is entitled to, since the date of his suspension i.e. since 15.09.1994, till his retirement on 30.04.2022. It is worth mentioning here in this context that pension and gratuity are not bounty to be distributed by Government to its employees on their retirement, but are valuable rights and property in its hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof is to be visited with penalty of payment of interest. 36. In the given facts and circumstances and also drawing premises from a decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Dr. J.K Goel, reported in 1995 SCC Supl. 36. In the given facts and circumstances and also drawing premises from a decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Dr. J.K Goel, reported in 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 161, this court is constrained to grant interest upon the salaries of the petitioner @ 6% since 15.09.1994, till payment of the said amount and also upon the other pensionary benefits, which the petitioner is legally entitled to @ 6% since the date of his retirement till the date of payment of the same.