JUDGEMENT : (ROBIN PHUKAN, J.) Heard Mr. D. Laji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the Rural Works Department (hereinafter RWD). 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020, whereby her service was terminated; and the order No. DRWD/E-1/T-2/2021-22/23-26, dated 01.05.2021, whereby she was directed to refund the drawn salary; and also the letter, No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt- I)/4167/69, dated 26.07.2021, whereby she was terminated under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules without holding any Departmental Inquiry. She has also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate her as Work Charge (WC hereinafter) @ Mazdoor as per appointment order No.RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt), dated 26.06.2018. 3. Mr. Laji, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that late husband of the petitioner, namely, Taro Kamda was working as WC @ Mazdoor in the office of the Executive Engineer, RWD, Daporijo and he died in harness on 07.11.2017, leaving behind the petitioner and four minor children. Since the sole bread winner had suffered demise, the family of the petitioner was suffering from serious financial hardship. Then, the Superintending Engineer (Co-ord), RWD, Itanagar, namely, Er. T.K. Tagin, who happened to be the cousin brother of the late husband of the petitioner, had appointed her as WC @ Mazdoor, vide order dated 26.06.2018, and posted under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, RWD, Daporijo and since then, she has been discharging her duties with sincerity and dedication to her controlling officer. But, after the death of her husband, marital discord surfaced between the petitioner and other family members in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, a Kebang was held and the said Kebang had dissolved the marital relationship and directed her to return the bridal amount as per customary practices and also to hand over the custody of the children to Kamda family. Accordingly, she had handed over the custody of her children to the Kamda family on 03.11.2020, in presence of Kebang members. Thereafter, the relationship between her and the family of the private respondent No. 5, deteriorated and they started to treat her as their enemy. 3.1. Mr. Accordingly, she had handed over the custody of her children to the Kamda family on 03.11.2020, in presence of Kebang members. Thereafter, the relationship between her and the family of the private respondent No. 5, deteriorated and they started to treat her as their enemy. 3.1. Mr. Laji further submits that while the petitioner was discharging her duties with sincerity and dedication, under the establishment of Executive Engineer, RWD, Daporijo, then on 01.05.2021, an order, No. DRWD/E-1/T- 2/2021-22/23-26, was served upon her whereby her service was discontinued w.e.f. 21.10.2020, in compliance of the order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013- 14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020. Vide order dated 01.05.2021, she was also asked to refund an amount of Rs. 1,35,585/- on account of discontinuation of her service. 3.2. Mr. Laji further submits that the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 22.10.2020, whereby the discontinuation of her service, with retrospective effect from 21.10.2020, was also given and even her controlling officer was not aware of the same, as they were never served with the copy of the same. 3.3. Mr. Laji also submits that the service of the petitioner was allegedly discontinued on the ground that the department is no satisfied with her routine works and that after verification her service is found not satisfactory. But, her Controlling Officer, i.e. the Executive Engineer has never recorded any adverse remark against her or asked her to improve her routine works or issued any show cause notice till date and therefore, she was receiving her monthly salary up to March, 2021. 3.4. Mr. Laji submits, the petitioner had submitted one representation on 15.05.2021, before the respondent No. 4, requesting for cancellation of the order dated 01.05.2021. She had filed another representation before the respondent No. 3 on 14.06.2021, for cancelling the order dated 20.10.2020. Since the aforesaid two representations failed to evoke any response, then she had filed another representation on 28.06.2021, before the respondent No. 2 for cancelling the aforesaid two orders. She had filed another representation before the respondent No. 3 on 14.06.2021, for cancelling the order dated 20.10.2020. Since the aforesaid two representations failed to evoke any response, then she had filed another representation on 28.06.2021, before the respondent No. 2 for cancelling the aforesaid two orders. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Chief Engineer, had disposed of the representation dated 14.06.2021, vide order dated 26.07.2021 and assigned new grounds for discontinuation of her service that the service has been terminated under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service Rules (CCS Rules hereinafter) on the ground of furnishing misleading documents to the department and for absence of fundamental trust of non-attending training and these issues have been decided on the basis of documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are proved and produced on behalf of the disciplinary authority under CCS Rules. But Mr. Laji submits that she has not furnished any misleading documents and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her and that under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, no order can be passed imposing major penalty including reduction in rank, removal from service, etc. without holding departmental inquiry. But, in the present case, petitioner’s service has been terminated without serving any show cause notice and without holding any departmental inquiry and as such, the same is arbitrary and illegal and she has never been given any notice before termination/discontinuation of her service as per order dated 20.10.2020. 3.5. Mr. Laji further submits that the petitioner had never submitted bogus certificate of Class – VIII passed to the respondent authorities. Mr. Laji also submits that on account of matrimonial discord between the family of the petitioner and consequent deterioration of relationship with the respondent No. 5, her service was terminated by the illegal order and as such, the same are liable to the set aside being illegal and arbitrary. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the respondent Nos. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the respondent Nos. 1 – 4 have submitted their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis considering the hardship being faced by the petitioner on account of untimely demise of her husband and that the petitioner had never submitted any original documents, but, submitted only xerox copies of documents at the time of her appointment and she was orally instructed at the time of her appointment that she will have to submit original documents at the earliest to remain in service. It is also stated that in the initial order, issued on 26.06.2018, the petitioner was appointed on temporary capacity and thereafter, another order dated 29.06.2018, was issued by superseding the earlier order dated 26.06.2018, whereby she was appointed for 6 months only. 4.1. Mr. Tarak also submits that another stand taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit is that the petitioner was required to undergo training module to continue in the service and for her placement in pay-band – I, from group ‘O’ employee. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.12.2019, the petitioner was directed to submit original documents of her educational qualification, certificate of training, etc. on or before 31.12.2019, and also mentioned that her service would be discontinued. But she had failed to submit her original documents and therefore, left with no other option, her service was discontinued w.e.f. 21.10.2020. Another stand being taken by the respondent authorities is that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory and she was allowed to continue in her service, beyond the period of appointment, inadvertently. 4.2. Mr. Tarak further submits that though vide order dated 16.07.2024, this court has directed to produce the entire record, yet, the respondent authorities informed him that despite best effort, they could not trace out the record. 5. The petitioner has submitted her reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, wherein she had taken a stand that she was appointed on 26.06.2018, on submission of original documents, which were returned after retaining the xerox copies of the same in the office of the Superintending Engineer. It is also stated that she was never asked to furnish the original documents again and that she is ready to produce the original documents again if she is directed to do so. 5.1. It is also stated that she was never asked to furnish the original documents again and that she is ready to produce the original documents again if she is directed to do so. 5.1. The petitioner has also denied superseding of her earlier appointment order dated 26.06.2018, by another order dated 29.06.2018, and that she has never been served with the new appointment order, dated 29.06.2018, issued by the Executive Engineer. It is also stated that the respondent No. 5, the then Superintending Engineer, had superseded her earlier appointment order dated 26.06.2018, by new appointment order dated 29.06.2018, with mala-fide intention, on account of her strained relation with the family of her late husband. 5.2. The petitioner has also taken another stand that she could not undergo any training because she was never served with any order by her superior officials and she was also not aware of the order dated 09.12.2019, allegedly communicated to the respondent No. 4 and as such, no fault can be found on her part for non-compliance of the order. 5.3. Her further stand is that she had never been asked to furnish her original documents on or before, 31.12.2019, vide order dated 20.12.2019, wherein the respondent authorities had stated that she slept over the same and that she never received the letter dated 20.12.2019, allegedly sent to her by the respondent No. 3 and that the same was a false and manufactured one with mala-fide intention to remove her from service. Her another stand is that there is no adverse remark from her controlling officer, i.e. the Executive Engineer, with regard to her service performance and no such remark was communicated to her by her controlling authority. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 20.10.2020, whereby the service of the petitioner was again discontinued and directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,35,585/, being the salary and the letter dated 26.07.2021, whereby she was terminated under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, allegedly without any Departmental Inquiry and also her appointment order dated 26.06.2018 and subsequent appointment order dated 29.06.2018. 7. It appears that the petitioner was appointment twice by two appointment orders. The first one is dated 26.06.2018 and the other is dated 29.06.2018. 7. It appears that the petitioner was appointment twice by two appointment orders. The first one is dated 26.06.2018 and the other is dated 29.06.2018. In the first one, the period of appointment was not mentioned, but, in the second order the period of appointment was mentioned as six months. In the second appointment order, there is no mention about the supersession of the first one. But, in the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent authorities had mentioned that the first one is superseded, which appears to be incorrect on the face of the record. Moreover, such supplement of reason in the affidavit, which is not there in the impugned order, is impermissible in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner , reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 7.1. It is to be noted here that the petitioner has disputed the second appointment order dated 29.06.2018. Though it is being claimed in the affidavit- in-opposition that the earlier appointment order was superseded, yet, no explanation is forthcoming as to under what circumstances it was superseded. It was not also communicated to the petitioner. Nor the relevant file was produced before the court despite asking. 8. Similarly, there are three orders regarding discontinuation of her service. The first one is dated 20.10.2020 and the second one is dated 01.05.2021 and also one termination order, allegedly under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules. The first one, dated 20.10.2020, was issued by the respondent No. 3 (Er. T.K. Tagin). The second one was issued by respondent No.4 (Executive Engineer) on 01.05.2021 and the third one, which is, in fact a termination order, also issued by respondent No.2, Er. T.K. Tagin, in the capacity Chief Engineer(W/Z) (P&D) cum- cord, RDW, on 26.07.2021. It also appears that there are serious discrepancies in respect of the date of appointment in the order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013- 14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure –F), where the date of appointment was mentioned as 23.12.2019, but, in the appointment order, Annexure – B, the date is mentioned as 26.06.2018. 9. It is to be noted here that though ‘termination’ is not mentioned as a form of major penalty under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, yet, it is related to removal and dismissal from service, which are indisputably major penalty, under the said Rule. 10. 9. It is to be noted here that though ‘termination’ is not mentioned as a form of major penalty under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, yet, it is related to removal and dismissal from service, which are indisputably major penalty, under the said Rule. 10. It is to be noted here that the Rule 14 of the CCS Rules read as under: - “ 14. Procedure for imposing major penalties: - (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this Rule 15, or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that act. (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government Servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof: ...........” 11. But, herein this case, though there is mentione about the Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, in the order dated 26.07.2021, and that the said order was issued on the basis of documentary evidence by which the article of charges were proved and produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary of the authority, yet, it is the categorical contention of the petitioner that no show cause notice, no article of charges and no list of witnesses were issued to her and she was not given any opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order. 12. In order to verify the plea, so taken by the respondent authorities in the letter dated 26.07.2021, relevant record was asked for, from the respondent authorities. But, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the respondent authorities could not find out the file as the respondent No. 5 already retired from his service and no such file is available in the office concerned. 12.1. But, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the respondent authorities could not find out the file as the respondent No. 5 already retired from his service and no such file is available in the office concerned. 12.1. The factum of failure on the part of respondent authorities, to produce the relevant record before this court, fortified the stand taken by the petitioner that no show cause notice, no article of charges, etc. were furnished to her. 13. While it is well settled position of law that no order, imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made, except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 15, or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act, without there being any enquiry and without there being any disciplinary proceeding, drawn up in terms of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the punishment of termination of service so imposed upon the petitioner, behind her back, is incomplete contravention of Rule 14 of the CCS Rules. And on this count also the impugned termination order is illegal and arbitrary. 14. The petitioner herein has taken a categorical stand that at the time of her appointment she had submitted all the original documents in respect of her educational qualification before the respondent authorities and even she is ready to produce the same and the contention made in the letter dated 26.07.2021, that she had submitted bogus certificate of Class – VIII and that she has not received any letter assigning her for module training, which fails to inspire confidence of this court, in view of the facts placed before this court by the petitioner that her relationship with the respondent No. 5 was strained and on account of the same, the respondent No. 5 had passed the order vindictively. These facts, so brought on record by the petitioner by filing her reply in affidavit in opposition, are not disputed by the respondent authority. 15. From the aforementioned discussion, it transpires that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a case for interference of this court. The impugned discontinuation order dated 20.10.2020, was passed by Er. These facts, so brought on record by the petitioner by filing her reply in affidavit in opposition, are not disputed by the respondent authority. 15. From the aforementioned discussion, it transpires that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a case for interference of this court. The impugned discontinuation order dated 20.10.2020, was passed by Er. T.K. Tagin as respondent No.3 and the termination letter, dated 26.07.2021, was also written by Er. T.K. Tagin, as respondent No.2, who is the cousin brother of the late husband of the petitioner. The modified appointment order, dated 29.06.2018 was also passed by him in his capacity as Executive Engineer, being respondent No.4. Looming large in the given factual backdrop, the aforementioned inconsistencies, coupled with factum of failure to produce the relevant file before this court, goes a long way to establish that the same were being passed vindictively and with mala-fide intention by Er. T.K. Tagin. 16. Looming large in the given factual backdrop, the aforementioned inconsistencies, coupled with factum of failure to produce the relevant file before this court, goes a long way to establish that the same were being passed vindictively and with mala-fide intention by Er. T.K. Tagin. 16. Thus, to recapitulate, on the following grounds the impugned order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020, whereby the service of the petitioner was discontinued; and also the letter, No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt-I)/4167/69, dated 26.07.2021, whereby she was terminated under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, fails to withstand legal scrutiny:- (i) Both are passed in total contravention of the principle of natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner; (ii) Both are based on fabricated and untrue reason, as there is no record to show unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner and no record of communication of any adverse remark in her ACR, by her controlling officer and also there is no record of receipt of any communication by her to attend mandatory training for the department and also there is no record of submission of bogus certificate in respect of her educational qualification, which goes to show that the said order and letter was issued for mala-fide reasons and the true motive of the respondent No.3 and 2 was to punish the petitioner and this is nothing but colorable exercise of power; (iii) There are serious discrepancies in respect of the date of appointment in order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020, (Annexure-F) where the date of appointment was mentioned as 23.12.2019, whereas, in the appointment order (Annexure-B) the date is mentioned as 26.06.2018; (iv) Even in Annexure-1 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities, the date of appointment is mentioned as 29.06.2018, and the same is also inconsistent with the date of appointment, in the order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt)/5022-27, dated20.10.2020; (v) The letter, No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt-I)/4167/69, dated26.07.2021, where by the service of the petitioner is terminated purportedly under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, without holding any Departmental Inquiry and in complete disregard to the due process of law, as provided under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules. (vi) Both are passed to victimize the petitioner and in violation of the established procedure of fairness and the same are meant to punish or disadvantage her and it is nothing but an unfair labour practice; 17. (vi) Both are passed to victimize the petitioner and in violation of the established procedure of fairness and the same are meant to punish or disadvantage her and it is nothing but an unfair labour practice; 17. Under the given facts and circumstances, this court is satisfied to hold that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a case for interference of this court. I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same sands allowed. The impugned order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020, and also the letter, No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt-I)/4167/69, dated 26.07.2021, both stands set aside and quashed. 18. Since the impugned order No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt)/5022-27, dated 20.10.2020, and also the letter No. RWC/Estt/Cord/04/2013-14(pt- I)/4167/69, dated 26.07.2021, stand set aside and quashed, the impugned order dated 01.05.2021, for refunding the salaries of Rs. 1,35,585/- is also stands set aside and quashed, being arbitrary and illegal in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) , reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 , wherein, recoveries by the employers, is held to be impermissible in law, from employees belonging to Class – III and Class – IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). 19. Consequently, by a mandamus of this court, the respondent authorities are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service with effect from 21.10.2020, and all service benefits, including back wages, shall be paid to her. 20. It is submitted at the bar that the petitioner is serving in the department, on the strength of an interim order, dated 20.08.2021. The interim relief, so granted earlier, stands merged with this final judgment and order. 21. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.