JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Abbas, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mr P P Dutta, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent. The records of the Disciplinary proceedings have been produced by Mr P P Dutta, learned counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Director of Secondary Education Assam, whereby the respondent authority had cancelled the promotion of the petitioner, and also assailing the enquiry report based on which the order dated 08.11.2023 assailed in this writ petition has been passed and for re-instating the petitioner in the post of Head Master of the High School as a consequential relief of setting aside of the orders aforesaid. 3. The genesis of this writ petition lies on an allegation levelled upon the petitioner that he had manipulated the date of his appointment in his service records for which an enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner. The records with the writ petition reveal that the petitioner had been appointed on 09.10.1990 by the Secretary of the Janata High School, Namsesu and he had accordingly joined the school on 10.10.1990. The school came to be provincialized in the year 1991 and after provincialization of the services of the petitioner, along with other staff of the school, the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat District Circle, Jorhat vide order dated 30.05.1992 approved the appointments given earlier by the School Managing Committee. 4. Accordingly, the service record of the petitioner had been initiated by the Joint Director Secondary Education Assam. The allegation leveled is that against the name of the petitioner in the service record maintained by the school, the date of appointment of the petitioner was shown as 05.02.1991 and there is a hand-written correction made to the effect that the date of appointment was of 10.10.1991. The record produced with the writ petition does not reflect any overwriting but shows that the date of 10.10.1990 has been written next to the date 05.02.1991. The services of the petitioner and other serving teachers in the acquaintance was confirmed by the Inspector of School on 1st of October, 2008. The petitioner, thereafter, had been promoted to the post of Head Master of the Janata High School by the order dated 5th August, 2017. 5. The services of the petitioner and other serving teachers in the acquaintance was confirmed by the Inspector of School on 1st of October, 2008. The petitioner, thereafter, had been promoted to the post of Head Master of the Janata High School by the order dated 5th August, 2017. 5. On 06.09.2018, the petitioner was required to submit as satisfactory written explanation on complaints received by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Director Secondary Education Assam. Complaints were received that the petitioner had manipulated the records of his date of joining and submitted the same at the time of selection of Head Master during the year 2015-16 and had got selected or appointed as regular Head Master of the Janata High School. The petitioner was thereafter summoned to appear for a hearing on 30.11.2018. On another hearing held on 30.01.2019, the original service book in respect of one Mahendra Nath Dutta, and of the petitioner were seized till disposal of the matter. After holding an enquiry and allowing the petitioner to give his statement in this matter, the order dated 11.09.2020 was passed by the Director of Secondary Education Assam, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect and one Mahendra Nath Dutta was allowed to hold charge of Headmaster of the school. 6. This order was passed recording that the suspension was imposed pending drawal of a departmental proceedings. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964, praying before the Director of Secondary Education for re-instatement in his service. The application was received by the Office of the Director of Secondary Education on 24.09.2020. 7. On 23.12.2020, the Director of Secondary Education, issued as show-cause to the petitioner stating that while he was working as an Assistant Teacher in Janata High School, he had manipulated his original date of joining. A second charge was levelled that while working as an Assistant Teacher in Janata High School, he had misguided the authority while manipulating official records with his motive. The third allegation levelled was that while working as an Assistant Teacher in Janata High School, he had manipulated official records during the exercise for promotion to the post of regular Head Master by recording the date of joining as 10.10.1990, instead of 05.02.1991 in the relevant papers by overwriting. He was charged with serious negligence and dereliction of duties. 8. He was charged with serious negligence and dereliction of duties. 8. The statement of allegations, the list of documents and the list of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner along with the memorandum of charge. On receipt of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner prayed before the disciplinary authority to be allowed to inspect the relevant documents for the purposes of filing his written statement. He filed the reply to the show- cause notice on 12.04.2021, where he made specific assertions that copies of the documents sought for to frame the reply to the show-cause had not been served upon him and he was filing to the reply to the show-cause under serious handicap. 9. The petitioner, in his reply, had submitted that he was not custodian of the records of which manipulation had been alleged and these being official records; he would have no opportunity to manipulate any such record. He asserted that he had joined duties on 10.10.1990, and it was an appropriate authority who might have made the requisite noting in the service record on realizing that the petitioner had joined his service in the then un-provincialised school on 10.10.1990. 10. Basically, the petitioner pleaded absence of access to the official records in order to enable him manipulate the record. The petitioner was called for a hearing on the 18th of September, 2021, along with the Inspector of Schools Jorhat District Circile Jorhat, the President of the SMDC of the Janata High School and one Mr Mahendra Nath Dutta, Assistant Teacher of the Janata High School, Namsesu District Jorhat. 11. The petitioner thereafter, preferred WP(C) No. 430 of 2021, in which the suspension order of the petitioner had been interfered with by this Court on the ground that the said order placing him on the suspension could not be sustained after expiry of 90 days without being reviewed any further. It was left to the wisdom of the department as to whether to proceed further with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. 12. It was left to the wisdom of the department as to whether to proceed further with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. 12. The Government of Assam in the Department of School Education issued an order dated 11.10.2023, by which Government of Assam in the Department of School Education had approved proposal for cancellation of the promotion order of the petitioner from the post of Head Master of the Janata High School, Jorhat and had directed the Director of Secondary Education Assam, to initiate a fresh selection process as per existing rules. 13. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the WP(C) No.6466 of 2023 and on 10.11.2023, this Court restrained the respondents jointly and severally from processing of finalizing any selection process for the Post of Head Master of Janata High School, Jorhat, till the next returnable date. The copy of the said order was submitted to the Office of the Director of Secondary Education on 16.11.2023. 14. The Department of School Education, thereafter, issued another order dated 15.02.2024 by which the Government of Assam had noted the submission of the Director of Secondary Education that the process of promotion to the Post of Head Master of different provincialised school at already been initiated and the petitioner had been given the liberty to participate to participate in the process and his case would be considered, if found eligible as per rule. In the meantime, the Director of Secondary Education by the order dated 08.11.2023, on the basis of the enquiry held against the petitioner, pursuant to the office order dated 23.12.2020, cancelled the order of promotion dated 05.08.2017, in respect of the petitioner to the Post of Regular Head Master in Janata High School under the Jorhat District. 15. The petitioner was re-instated in service as an Assistant Teacher Science and was posted at National Telegraph Girls High School under the Jorhat district with immediate effect. The period of suspension was regularized only for pensionary benefits. The emolument already received by the petitioner during his suspension period was considered to be his entitlement. The concerned Branch of the Directorate were required to initiate necessary process for filling up the post of Head Master of Janata High School on regular basis as per provision of existing service rules. The order dated 18.11.2023 was stated have been issued in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 03.05.2023, WP(C) No. 430/2023. The concerned Branch of the Directorate were required to initiate necessary process for filling up the post of Head Master of Janata High School on regular basis as per provision of existing service rules. The order dated 18.11.2023 was stated have been issued in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 03.05.2023, WP(C) No. 430/2023. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by this present writ petition praying for setting aside of the order dated 08.03.2021. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the order of 08.11.2023 has been challenged in the present writ petition, which was filed on 15th of July, 2024, the delay in approaching this Court was because the petitioner had been served a copy of the order dated 08.11.2023 only on 09.07.2024. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, without prejudice to challenge that the petitioner may have with regard to the correctness of the allegations level against him, the petitioner suffered grossly when the enquiring authority appointed by the superior authority had violated all principles of natural justice and administrative action during the enquiry pending. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that (i) petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses who may have made statements before the enquiry officer, (iii) the presenting officer, even when he was available in the enquiry proceedings when the petitioner was present, had not participated in the enquiry proceeding in a manner in which presenting officer was required to participate and had been a mere spectator allowing the enquiry officer to conduct his own proceeding at his own prevail. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was called for the enquiry only on one date, when he made a statement. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the hearing the matter was held only on 24.09.2021, and immediately thereafter the enquiry report had been submitted. It would be apparent that the enquiry proceedings had been taken up and concluded on the very same date without affording any scope of defense to the petitioner herein. 21. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the hearing the matter was held only on 24.09.2021, and immediately thereafter the enquiry report had been submitted. It would be apparent that the enquiry proceedings had been taken up and concluded on the very same date without affording any scope of defense to the petitioner herein. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the memorandum of charge and the list of witnesses annexed thereto and as per the notice received by the petitioner, requiring him to appear before the Enquiring Authority, the Inspector of Schools, JDC, Jorhat was mentioned as a witness in the proceedings. However, during the enquiry proceedings held on 24.09.2021, the Inspector of Schools did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and instead one Senior Assistant appeared on behalf of the witness, namely, Inspector of Schools, Jorhat. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that elaborate arguments regarding the merit of the allegations etc., have not been addressed since a departmental enquiry and its outcome is required to be assessed with regard to the procedure in which it had been conducted and with regard to the violation of the fair opportunity of defence being afforded to a delinquent official is concerned. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the Enquiry Report annexed as Annexure-G to the affidavit-in- opposition, filed by the respondent authorities themselves that the enquiry was held only on a particular date, when 3 (three) prosecution witnesses have been examined and the Enquiry Report itself does not reveal that the defence put up by the petitioner, when his statement was recorded, was even taken into account by the Enquiry Officer. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had not been informed about his right to engage a defence counsel. Another limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had never been served a copy of the Enquiry Report, and, therefore, he never had the opportunity to rebut the findings of the enquiry before the disciplinary authority could have taken the decision to his detriment. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the enquiry proceedings require the interference of this Court to the extent of being set at naught . 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the enquiry proceedings require the interference of this Court to the extent of being set at naught . He further submits that once the enquiry proceedings are found to be not sustainable in law, any further penalty orders imposed upon him would also require to be set aside and quashed. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is evident from the order passed by the disciplinary authority that till the time the petitioner had been removed from the post of Headmaster by withdrawing the promotion order, he had been holding the aforesaid post in substantive capacity, although under suspension. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in WP(C) No. 6466/2023 preferred by the petitioner, this Court had already restrained the respondent authorities from proceeding with any selection process with regard to the post of Headmaster of the Janata High School. He submits that the said post, as of today, is being held by an In-charge and in the event, this Court sets aside the order dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in his post of Headmaster of the Janata High School, by replacing the In-charge Headmaster. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that his removal from the post of Headmaster being effectuated, pursuant to an illegal enquiry, the petitioner may also be held to be entitled to the benefits, which might have accrued to him in the interregnum from the date on which he had been removed from the post of Headmaster of the school, till the date he is reinstated as the Headmaster of the Janata High School. 27. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition attested by the Director of Secondary Education. 28. Mr P P Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition and submitted that it was apparent from the records available that the petitioner had refrained from giving detailed particulars about the source of his appointment, date of actual joining and other information as to how he was placed under suspension, pending drawal of department proceeding. The learned counsel appearing for the Department of School Education has submitted, on the basis of the affidavit, that the petitioner was allowed to take classes as Science Teacher in the Janata High School, Jorhat, prior to the provincialization of the school and the actual date of joining of the petitioner in the school as per the records maintained in the Department was 05.02.1991 and not 10.10.1990. 29. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had never submitted any application for correction of his date of joining in the Janata High School and when a correction was seen to be appearing on the service record, the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat, had enquired into the matter and submitted a report on 04.10.2017, to the effect that the petitioner had manipulated his date of joining in the official records which he had submitted during the time of filling up the applications for the post of Headmaster. 30. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the post of Assistant Teacher of the Janata High School, which was held by the petitioner prior to him being promoted had been filled up and, therefore, when the promotion order of the petitioner was withdrawn, he had to be posted to another school, namely, the National Telegraph Girls’ High School in the same district, to maintain his continuity in service. The learned counsel has further submitted that the records would reveal that the representations and appeals submitted by the petitioner had received due consideration of the appropriate authority and had been appropriately disposed of by passing speaking orders. 31. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the prayers in the writ petition being completely untenable in law, the same would not require any consideration of this Court at this stage and deserve to be dismissed. He has prayed that the writ petition be dismissed without granting relief to the petitioner. 32. The learned departmental counsel has produced the records of the departmental proceeding held against the petitioner, which are available in File No. GB-EST/DSE/Allegation/10/2020, maintained with the GB-EST/Branch of the Office of the Director of Secondary Education. 33. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting the parties, perused the pleadings made available with the case record and has also gone through the original records produced by the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. 33. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting the parties, perused the pleadings made available with the case record and has also gone through the original records produced by the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. 34. It is a settled position in law that the while evaluating the grievances of a delinquent who assails a disciplinary proceeding, the writ Court is required to take into consideration, the process which was followed by the disciplinary authority in coming to a conclusion in the matter. It would not be upon the writ Court to comment upon the veracity or otherwise of the allegations leveled in the writ petition. Of course, in case, the very allegations seem to be unreasonable or impossible, the writ Court would be required to comment on the character of the allegations. 35. In the present case, it does not appear to this Court that this Court is required to evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, to evaluate the grievances raised by the petitioner, this Court has decided to go through the original records to find out if the allegations leveled by the petitioner regarding the lack of opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings were enough in law to vitiate the enquiry proceedings and as a consequential relief whether the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in his original post of Headmaster of Janata High School. 36. The show cause notice along with the attachments, namely the statement of allegations, the list of witnesses and the list of documents are the same as is found in the records of the writ petition. There is letter available on record that the period of suspension of the petitioner had been extended by an order dated 28.01.2021. By an order dated 08.02.2021, the Additional Director of Secondary Education had informed the petitioner that the list of documents had already been provided to the petitioner and that he was allowed to inspect the list of documents for preparation of reply on 23.12.2020 in the office chamber of the Additional Director, during office hours. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was refused an inspection. However, the grievance raised is that he was not supplied with copies of the documents. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was refused an inspection. However, the grievance raised is that he was not supplied with copies of the documents. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the petitioner had the opportunity of inspecting the documents, he could have taken notes as required during the inspection period. In the letter dated 23.03.2021, the petitioner has expressed gratitude for being allowed to inspect the documents. This Court do not find a prayer that the copies of documents be supplied to him prior to his filing reply. 37. The period of suspension of the petitioner was, thereafter, extended on 13.04.2021. No grievance has been expressed by the petitioner in this regard. The reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner on 12.04.2021 was received by the office of the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Director, Secondary Education, Assam, on 12.04.2021 itself. 38. The records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, reveal that by an order dated 1st of July, 2021, the Joint Director of Secondary Education and the Superintendent of the GB-EST Branch, were appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, respectively, to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner by the Director of Secondary Education. By an order dated 18th of September, 2021, the Enquiry Officer, i.e., the Joint Director of Secondary Education, had required the Inspector of Schools, JDC, Jorhat, the petitioner, the President of the SMDC, Janata High School, and the Assistant Teacher of the Janata High School to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 24.09.2021 at 11:30 am, in connection with the existing disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. They were required to attend with all original supporting documents/papers, including service book in connection with the selection of regular Headmaster of Janata High School, Jorhat District, positively, without delay. 39. The departmental records further reveal that Mahendra Nath Dutta, who was the witness No. 4 during the enquiry proceeding, had given his statement on 24.09.2021. The record also reveals that the petitioner had given his statement on the same date before the Enquiry Officer. The attendance sheet annexed to the enquiry report, which is available in the departmental record, shows that the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner, Mahendra Dutta, and the Senior Assistant on behalf of the Inspector of Schools was present during enquiry proceedings. The record also reveals that the petitioner had given his statement on the same date before the Enquiry Officer. The attendance sheet annexed to the enquiry report, which is available in the departmental record, shows that the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner, Mahendra Dutta, and the Senior Assistant on behalf of the Inspector of Schools was present during enquiry proceedings. Although the Enquiry Report remains undated, the office noting on 30.09.2021, reflects that the Joint Director of the DSE had suggested that the Enquiry Report submitted in the matter of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner may be submitted to the Director of Secondary Education, for necessary approval. The file noting of 30.04.2022, reflets that the report so submitted had been accepted. It is, therefore, apparent that after the enquiry report has been submitted, there is nothing in the official records to show that a copy of the said Enquiry Report had been forwarded to the petitioner to afford him an opportunity of replying to the Enquiry Report. 40. The official records do not reveal any prayer made by the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings for appointment or engagement of a defence assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Jagadish Chandra Nath –Vs- State of Assam & Others; reported in 2019 (4) GLT 1006, to impress upon this Court that the absence of the information to the petitioner that he was entitled to avail the assistance of a defence assistant and the absence of the information to the petitioner that he had a right to cross-examine the departmental witness, would lead to a procedural violation of Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules. 41. This Court, therefore, finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never had the opportunity to effectively defend himself during the enquiry. 42. The records of the departmental proceeding, thereafter, reveal that the Enquiry Report etc., was forwarded to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, Dispur, Guwahati, on 03.02.2023, with a proposal for cancellation of the order of promotion in respect of Sri Amal Kumar Boruah, to the post of Headmaster of Janata High School, Jorhat, which was issued by the office order and updated on 05.08.2017. 43. 43. This Court has noticed that the Enquiry Officer had called for the petitioner and other witnesses on 18.09.2021, for all of them to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 24.09.2021. 44. The records do not contain any noting to the effect or for that matter, the Enquiry Report itself does not contain any reference that the petitioner had been given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, that the documents which were placed before the Enquiry Officer, were exhibited by the Presenting Officer or that the petitioner had been put to any advance notice that the Senior Assistant of the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat, would replace the actual witness called for, i.e., the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat, or that the Presenting Officer nominated by the disciplinary authority had participated in the enquiry proceedings in an manner whatsoever. In the absence of any reference in the Enquiry Report as to the participation of the Presenting Officer, this Court is of the view that the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to lead the entire enquiry on behalf of the disciplinary authority. He had, thus, in view of this Court, acted as a Presenting Officer and an Enquiry Officer, at the same time. 45. This Court further notices that upon submission of the Enquiry Report before the authority, the disciplinary authority did not find it necessary to supply a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner to have his comments or to give him an opportunity to rebut the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. 46. The impugned order by which the petitioner got promoted to the post of Headmaster, was also passed during the pendency of WP(C) No. 6466/2023. 47. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion the departmental enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The order dated 08.11.2023, which had been passed by the Director of Secondary Education, without affording an opportunity to have his reply on the Enquiry Report, also suffers serious defect, which hits at the root of the issue. 48. In that view of the matter, the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, stand vitiated and are, therefore, set aside and quashed. 48. In that view of the matter, the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, stand vitiated and are, therefore, set aside and quashed. Consequential orders, be it proposing a penalty, approving the penalty or the final order dated 08.11.2023, imposing the penalty and revoking the promotion granted to the petitioner are also set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled now to be reinstated in his post of Headmaster in the Janata High School, which as per the statements at the Bar is now being held by an In-Charge. The petitioner be reinstated forthwith and in any events, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to be supplied by the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the selection process had already been kept in abeyance in WP(C) No. 6466/2023, vide order dated 10.11.2023. 49. The respondent authorities will be at liberty to continue with the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Since it appears that disciplinary authority which was involved with the matter in the earlier round, the Enquiry Officer who was appointed and also the Presenting Officer, who was appointed to conduct the enquiry had utterly failed in their duty to adhere with the principles of natural justice, this Court deems it fit that the matter shall now be placed before the Secretary of the Department of School Education, who shall take a decision as to the requirement of continuing the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the memorandum of charge dated 23.12.2020,and who shall appoint Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, if such a decision to continue the proceeding is arrived at. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education shall also nominate another officer of a rank equivalent to the Director of Secondary Education as the disciplinary authority in this particular case in the unique facts and circumstances. The Secretary to the Government of Assam shall ensure that no person who was involved in the earlier round of enquiry, save and except the witnesses, shall participate in the enquiry proceedings, if at all, held against the petitioner on the show cause dated 23.12.2020. 50. On his reinstatement in his post held prior to being illegally removed, the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits which may arise from such reinstatement in service. 51. 50. On his reinstatement in his post held prior to being illegally removed, the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits which may arise from such reinstatement in service. 51. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 52. No costs. 53. The records produced by Mr P P Dutta, be forthwith, so that the same may be transmitted back to the Department concerned.