JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Saroj Chettri, has put to challenge the enquiry report dated 06.12.2007, submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and also the dismissal from service of the petitioner, vide Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 16.04.2015; Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 04.11.2015 and Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 20.02.2020. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned enquiry report dated 06.12.2007, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him in the departmental enquiry and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 16.04.2015, the petitioner was dismissed from service; vide impugned order dated 04.11.2015, the respondent authorities had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 20.02.2020, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “The petitioner, Sri Saroj Chettri was serving as a Constable at 1st AAPBn at Itanagar Police Station and he was detailed for guarding the Under Trial Prisoner (UTP) Cell. In the intervening night of 15.01.2007 - 16.01.2007, one UTP, namely, Sri Gungte Tugung escaped from custody by cutting ventilator rods. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged with the Itanagar Police Station on 16.01.2007 and a case under Sections 223/224 of the IPC was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with others, was placed under suspension as per Rule 23(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (“Rules of 1999?, for short), vide order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 17.01.2007. After the said incident, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Papum Pare and a report was submitted in connection with the escape of UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung, wherein it is indicated that the Officer In-Charge Sri R. Monpa, SI Sri Inya Ete and the petitioner were responsible for failure in discharging their duties. Thereafter, article of charges were framed against the Officer In-Charge Sri R. Monpa, SI Sri Inya Ete and the petitioner on the imputation of misconduct and failure to discharge their duties as the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, the SI assigned to UTP Cell and the Constable guarding the UTP Cell, vide Memorandum No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 28.02.2007. Thereafter, article of charges were framed against the Officer In-Charge Sri R. Monpa, SI Sri Inya Ete and the petitioner on the imputation of misconduct and failure to discharge their duties as the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, the SI assigned to UTP Cell and the Constable guarding the UTP Cell, vide Memorandum No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 28.02.2007. Thereafter, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 17.01.2007, was revoked vide Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 14.05.2007, pending departmental proceeding against him and two others. The petitioner had submitted his statement in defence on 15.11.2007, wherein he confessed that a pair of boot and an empty bottle containing liquid medicine for skin disease were given to one UTP, namely, Debia Basumatary and not to the escaped UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung and further clarified that during his duty time only cutting of the ventilator grill was not done as per the enquiry report. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 06.12.2007, holding that the article of charges against the petitioner was proved, but was not proved against the other two charged officers and the petitioner was solely held responsible for the escape of UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung and that Inspector Sri R. Monpa and SI Sri Inya Ete were also responsible for negligence in discharging their duties. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted one representation against the departmental enquiry on 31.12.2007 and then show cause notice was issued to him, vide Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 27.02.2015, whereby he was directed to submit a written reply within 15 days as to why proposed penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him for the gravest misconduct and his suspension period should not be treated as not spent on duty for all intent and purposes. The petitioner then submitted his reply and thereafter, vide impugned Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 16.04.2015, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner with immediate effect as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No. 5 for reconsideration of the penalty imposed upon him on humanitarian ground. But, said representation was dismissed by the respondent No. 4, vide impugned Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 04.11.2015 and that the said order is in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No. 5 for reconsideration of the penalty imposed upon him on humanitarian ground. But, said representation was dismissed by the respondent No. 4, vide impugned Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 04.11.2015 and that the said order is in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3 on 04.02.2019 for consideration of the penalty imposed upon him, but the same was dismissed, vide impugned Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 20.02.2020, which is also in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.” 5. The respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the assertions made in the present petition. It is stated that a fact finding enquiry/preliminary enquiry was conducted as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1999 and regular departmental enquiry was conducted as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with a finding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and the charges leveled against the two other persons, namely, Inspector Sri R. Monpa and SI Sri Inya Ete, could not be proved, and that before imposing the penalty, the petitioner was served with show cause notice and thereafter, the same was considered and the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and the same was also came to be dismissed and the petitioner was found guilty on the following counts: (i) He failed to perform his duty property and helped the UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung to escape from the custody. (ii) He used to go out of the cell during his duty hours and during which cutting of ventilator rods by the UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung was carried out. (iii) He also gave one pair of police uniform to the UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung with a view to facilitate him to escape from custody. 5.1. It is also stated that the penalty, so imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the charges proved against him and that there is no scope for interference of this Court with the impugned orders so passed by the respondent authorities and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Mr. 5.1. It is also stated that the penalty, so imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the charges proved against him and that there is no scope for interference of this Court with the impugned orders so passed by the respondent authorities and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of dismissal from service of the petitioner requires interference of this Court on the following grounds: (i) The impugned orders were passed mechanically. (ii) The enquiry was conducted without appointing any Defence Officer to assist the petitioner during enquiry. (iii) The preliminary enquiry report was not considered. (iv) Seven to eight witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and they had not implicated the present petitioner. (v) The punishment so imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and he deserves some leniency. (vi) The disciplinary authority had not passed the order, but it was passed by the appellate authority and the order was issued by the Inspector General of Police. 6.1. Mr. Kato further submits that though the petitioner had preferred an appeal, the same was not considered by the respondent authorities. Under such circumstances, Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 7. Per contra, Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the enquiry was conducted properly and everything was taken care of during the course of enquiry and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the charges, and one of the witness, namely, Krishna Sharma had clearly stated the role played by the petitioner in facilitating UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung to escape. Ms. Ete further submits that the petitioner had provided the police uniform to the said UTP and the charges against him stand proved and the punishment imposed is justified and reasonable and no interference of this Court is called for. Ms. Ete has also produced the concerned departmental enquiry file for perusal of this Court. In support of her submission, Ms. Ete has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Heem Singh, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569 . 8. Ms. Ete has also produced the concerned departmental enquiry file for perusal of this Court. In support of her submission, Ms. Ete has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Heem Singh, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569 . 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the relevant file produced by Ms. Ete, before this Court. 9. It also appears that the principle of natural justice has been followed and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and to cross-examine the witnesses during the course of enquiry. It further appears that preliminary enquiry was conducted in connection with the incident and thereafter, regular departmental enquiry was started and the memorandum of article of charges was furnished to the petitioner and the charges were framed against the petitioner on following two counts, which were considered as serious misconduct, for which he is liable to be dealt with departmentally under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999: (a) That, while he was posted at Itanagar Police Station on 15.01.2007 and detailed for guarding UTP Cell w.e.f. 2000 hours to 0600 hours, in the intervening night of 15.01.2007-16.01.2007, at Itanagar Police Station, not only failed to perform his duty properly, but helped the UTP Sri Gungte Tugung to escape from the custody. (b) That, during his duty hours, he used to go out of the cell often during which cutting of ventilator rods by UTP Sri Gungte Tugung was carried out. He also gave one pair of police uniform to UTP Sri Gungte Tugung with a view to facilitate him to escape from custody under the guards of uniformed personnel. And taking advantage of such facilitation, UTP Sri Gungte Tugung escaped from custody. 10. He also gave one pair of police uniform to UTP Sri Gungte Tugung with a view to facilitate him to escape from custody under the guards of uniformed personnel. And taking advantage of such facilitation, UTP Sri Gungte Tugung escaped from custody. 10. It also appears that the list of documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer has been furnished, along with the list of witnesses and after completion of enquiry, the petitioner was asked to give his defence statement and in his defence statement dated 15.11.2007, he denied the charges, but he confessed the following: (i) A pair of boot was given to one UTP, namely, Debia Basumatary at his request as he was pestering him for the same and he had no shoes to go to Magistrate, Court etc. He was also in the same cell No. 4. (ii) An empty bottle containing liquid medicine for skin disease was given to one UTP, namely, Debia Basumatary which he used to throw away. 11. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had examined as many as seven witnesses and the petitioner and other two charged officers had examined seven witnesses and the other two charged officers exhibited five documents, but the petitioner had not exhibited any document. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had arrived at a finding that the charge Nos. (a) and (b) stand proved and then, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner had also filed one representation. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him and only thereafter, punishment was imposed. 12. Though Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a stand that the petitioner was not given the assistance of a defence officer, yet, said submission left this Court unimpressed in as much as there is no such requirement in the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Rule 7(6) provides as under:- “the subordinate rank may take the assistance of any other member of Police Department posted in the same district to present the case on his behalf before the enquiry authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner.” 12.1. Thus, a bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it abundantly clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the inquiry officer to engage defence officer. Thus, a bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it abundantly clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the inquiry officer to engage defence officer. Rather, it is prerogative of the charge officer to take assistance of any other member of police department of the district. It is however, not the case of the petitioner that he wanted to take assistance of any other member of the police department and the inquiry officer had refused to grant him such assistance. 13. In the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission so advanced by Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. 14. Though Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry was conducted mechanically, yet having gone through the relevant documents placed on record and also having perused the relevant file produced by Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Kato. 15. It is to be noted here that there is no allegation of misreading the evidence or non-consideration of the evidence by the enquiry officer. Though, it is stated that the procedure has not been followed by the Enquiry Officer, yet the same is found to be not correct. Though, Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment so imposed is too harsh and it warrant a little bit leniency, yet this Court is unable to agree with the said submission. Having regard to the gravity of the charges, the punishment so imposed appears to be proportionate and reasonable. 16. Though Mr. Kato, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary enquiry report was not considered by the disciplinary authority, yet, there is no requirement in the relevant Rules. The purpose of preliminary enquiry is clearly provided in Rule 6 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Sub-Rule 1, 2, 3 and 4 are read as under:- (1) A preliminary inquiry is a fact finding enquiry. The purpose of preliminary enquiry is clearly provided in Rule 6 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Sub-Rule 1, 2, 3 and 4 are read as under:- (1) A preliminary inquiry is a fact finding enquiry. Its purpose is:- (a) to establish the nature of default and identity of the defaulter(s), (b) to collect prosecution evidence, (c) to judge quantum of default and (d) to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental inquiry, (2) In case where specific information covering the points mentioned in the sub-rule (1) exists, a preliminary inquiry need not be held and departmental inquiry may be ordered by the disciplinary authority straightway. In all other cases a preliminary inquiry shall normally precede a departmental inquiry. The preliminary inquiry need not be conducted by any particular rank of officer and it need not necessarily be ordered by the disciplinary authority. (3) In case in which a preliminary inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by an officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental inquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental inquiry should be held. 4. The suspected police officials may or may not be present at a preliminary enquiry but when present he shall not cross-examine the witnesses. The file of preliminary enquiry shall not form part of the formal departmental record. However, there shall be no bar to the inquiry officer bringing on record any document from the file of the preliminary inquiry, if he considered it necessary after supplying copies of the same to the charged official(s). All statements recorded during preliminary inquiry shall be signed by the person making them and attested by the inquiry officer. 16.1. Thus, it appears that Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6 prohibits the file of preliminary enquiry being part of the formal departmental record. But, discretion is left with the inquiry officer in bringing on record any document from the file of the preliminary inquiry, if he considered it necessary, subject however supplying copy of the same to the charged official. 16.2. Thus, it appears that Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6 prohibits the file of preliminary enquiry being part of the formal departmental record. But, discretion is left with the inquiry officer in bringing on record any document from the file of the preliminary inquiry, if he considered it necessary, subject however supplying copy of the same to the charged official. 16.2. Here in this case, regular enquiry was initiated against the petitioner based upon the preliminary enquiry report and on the basis of regular enquiry and the evidence so brought on record, the inquiry officer had arrived at the finding that article of charges were proved. And once the regular disciplinary proceeding is initiated, the preliminary enquiry report, prepared on the basis of materials collected at that time, lost its significance, and as such its non consideration by the disciplinary authority, has no bearing upon the outcome of the regular departmental proceeding. 17. It is also well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is a preponderance of probability. The degree of proof is high in the case of a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in the case of Heem Singh (supra). Here in this case, from the materials placed on record, it appears that the charges framed against the petitioner stands established to the standard of proof indicated herein above. 18. I have also considered the submission of Mr. Kato in respect of passing the impugned order by the appellate authority not by the disciplinary authority. Sub-Rule 1 to Rule 4 provides that punishment mentioned in Rule 3(1) and 3(2) may be imposed on a member of the subordinate rank by the appointing authority or the authority specified in Schedule-1. Sub-Rule 4 to Rule 4 provides that punishment mentioned in Rule 3 shall be awarded by the disciplinary authority under whom; the member of subordinate rank is actually working at the time of award of punishment. Schedule-I at Sl.No.5 provides as under:- Sl. No. Description of the Post Appointing Authority Disciplinary Authority Penalties Appellate Authority Reviewing Authority 5. Constable AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN. AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN. ASP/DY.SP/DY. CO.BN/ASSTT. CO.BN INSPECTOR ALL 1. Censure-Rule 3 (1)a 2. Confinement to the quarters with or without extra drill 3. Schedule-I at Sl.No.5 provides as under:- Sl. No. Description of the Post Appointing Authority Disciplinary Authority Penalties Appellate Authority Reviewing Authority 5. Constable AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN. AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN. ASP/DY.SP/DY. CO.BN/ASSTT. CO.BN INSPECTOR ALL 1. Censure-Rule 3 (1)a 2. Confinement to the quarters with or without extra drill 3. Punishment drill not exceeding 15 days. DIGP DIGP NIL NIL IGP IGP NIL NIL 18.1. In the instant case, the documents so placed on record, indicates that the impugned order was passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police as disciplinary authority along with Inspector R. Monpa and Sub-Inspector Inya Ete upon the same charges along with the petitioner. In respect of the Inspector, appointing authority is DIGP and disciplinary authority is also DIGP and appellate authority is IGP and reviewing authority is DGP. In respect of Sub-Inspector, appointing authority is AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN, and disciplinary authority is AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN., appellate authority is DIGP and reviewing authority is IGP. 18.2. It also appears that since the petitioner was suspended and also charged sheeted together with the Inspector R. Monpa and Sub-Inspector Inya Ete, the disciplinary authority is same i.e. DIGP, though in case of the petitioner, being the constable, the disciplinary authorities are:- AIGP/SUPDT. OF POLICE/ PRNL.PTC/CO BN, ASP/DY.SP/DY.CO.BN/ASSTT.CO.BN, INSPECTOR, 18.3. Since the disciplinary authority in respect of the petitioner was DIGP, his appellate authority would be IGP and reviewing authority would be DGP respectively. And in fact the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the IGP and the IGP had dealt with the same vide order dated 11th Nov. 2015, which is being annexed with the petition as Annexure- 13. Further, it appears that the petitioner had also preferred one review petition before the DGP and the DGP vide order dated 20th February, 2020, at Annexure-15, had dismissed the review petition. 18.4. And since DIGP had acted as disciplinary authority, he is competent to pass the impugned order and as such, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to him. Had he been dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, then only protection under clause 1 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would have been available to him. 18.5. Had he been dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, then only protection under clause 1 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would have been available to him. 18.5. While dealing with this point, in the case of Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 200 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “Article 311(1) of the Constitution enjoins that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Under this article the authority to remove should not be subordinate to that by which he was appointed. That does not mean that the power cannot be exercised by an authority higher than the appointing one.” 18.6. Here in this case the authority, who had dismissed the petitioner, is higher in rank than the appointing authority. And as such, he has the power and authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. 19. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interfering with the impugned order. 20. In the result, I find this writ petition bereft of merit and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.