JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. P Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Handique, learned Standing counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. C K S Baruah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 10.01.2024, along with an order dated 05.07.2024, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order dated 25.08.2024, passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the order, affirming the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. The petitioner, herein, while working as a Land Record Assistant in the Office of the Circle Officer, Nazira Revenue Circle, an FIR came to be lodged against him, before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, on 14.06.2023, alleging demand of bribe from the complainant. On receipt of the said FIR, the same was registered as ACB P.S. Case No. 44/2023 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, on 14.06.2023, was arrested in connection with the said police case. The petitioner, being placed under arrest and having been detained beyond 48 hours, the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, vide order dated 28.06.2023, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail by the learned Special Judge, Assam, vide an order dated 28.07.2023. The District Commissioner, Sivasagar-cum-Disciplinary Authority, issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.2023, to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause as to why strict disciplinary action should not be taken against him, basing on the allegations set out, therein. The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice, vide his reply dated 13.09.2023. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner issued another show cause notice to the petitioner dated 16.10.2023, instituting a disciplinary proceeding against him. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, vide a communication dated 25.10.2023, forwarded a list of witnesses to the petitioner, who would be deposing in support of the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023, on 30.10.2023. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, vide a communication dated 25.10.2023, forwarded a list of witnesses to the petitioner, who would be deposing in support of the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023, on 30.10.2023. The show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, not being found to be satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was directed to be held against the petitioner. On conclusion of the said enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, vide order dated 10.01.2024, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner a penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.01.2024, submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 16.03.2024. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Disciplinary Authority, proceeded vide order dated 05.07.2024, to partially modify the earlier order dated 10.01.2024. However, the penalty of dismissal from service, as imposed upon the petitioner, was maintained. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority of the petitioner, i.e., the Director of Land Records, Assam, on a consideration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, proceeded vide order dated 25.08.2024, to reject the same and thereby, affirm the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the materials available on record, has submitted that after the show cause reply was submitted by the petitioner on 30.10.2023, it is seen that an Enquiry Officer, along with a Presenting Officer was appointed in the matter by the Disciplinary Authority. He submits that from the materials brought on record, it would be evident that the petitioner was never issued with any notice to appear before the Enquiry Officer. However, the Enquiry Officer had required the witnesses to appear before him and on their such appearance, it is seen that their statements were recorded and on conclusion of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. 4.1 Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the said enquiry report, however, was not forwarded to the petitioner for his comments. He, accordingly, submits that the enquiry that was held in the matter, was so held behind the back of the petitioner. 4.2 Mr. 4.1 Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the said enquiry report, however, was not forwarded to the petitioner for his comments. He, accordingly, submits that the enquiry that was held in the matter, was so held behind the back of the petitioner. 4.2 Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 05.07.2024, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, therein, had recorded that the Enquiry Officer as appointed in the matter, had submitted his enquiry report, however, there is no finding recorded in the said order dated 10.01.2024, that the copy of the said enquiry report was also forwarded to the petitioner, herein. He submits that the order dated 10.01.2024, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Rule 7(20) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. He, however, submits that there is no Sub Rule (20) in Rule of 7 of the Rules of 1964. 4.3 Mr. Bodoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved, had submitted an appeal on 16.03.2024, against the penalty as imposed upon him, vide order dated 10.01.2024. He submits that during the pendency of the said appeal, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, proceeded to issue an order dated 05.07.2024, in partial modification of the earlier order dated 10.01.2024 and again imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, however, now by invoking the provisions of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1964. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority, having concluded the disciplinary proceedings vide issuance of the order dated 10.01.2024, the subsequent order dated 05.07.2024, is to be so construed to have been issued without jurisdiction by the Disciplinary Authority. He further submits that the Appellate Authority, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner about the prejudice caused to him in not allowing him to cross-examine the witnesses during the enquiry and further, the enquiry to have been so held behind his back, as well as the non-furnishing of an enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, proceeded vide order dated 25.08.2024 to reject the said appeal, thereby, affirming the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 05.07.2024, passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4.4 Mr. 4.4 Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty having been imposed upon the petitioner in pursuance to a departmental proceeding conducted against him in clear violation of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, as well as the provisions of Rule 9(A), thereof, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, being in pursuance to an enquiry, which stood vitiated, the same would mandate an interference from this Court. He submits that on interference being made with the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner, the consequential order passed by the Appellate Authority would also mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. J Handique and Mr. C K S Baruah, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, 2023, is the jurisdictional District Commissioner. It is submitted that a Notification dated 03.11.2023, was issued by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, notifying the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority for the employees of various cadres under the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, who have opted for the District Cadre. Accordingly, it is submitted that for the post of Land Record Assistant, the Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority is the District Commissioner and the Appellate Authority is the Director of Land Records and Survey, Assam. 5.1 The learned counsels for the respondents submit that the disciplinary proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, by his notified Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, no error is found with regard to the institution of such proceedings against the petitioner. 5.2 The learned counsels for the respondents have further submitted that after the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory, a Enquiry Officer, along with a Presenting Officer was appointed in the matter by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. 5.3 It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer, thereafter, after scheduling a date for holding the enquiry, had issued notices to all the witnesses, who were to depose in the enquiry in support of the charges framed against the petitioner. It is submitted that a copy of the same was also forwarded to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was aware of the date so fixed by the Enquiry Officer in the matter. It is submitted that a copy of the same was also forwarded to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was aware of the date so fixed by the Enquiry Officer in the matter. 5.4 It is submitted that in spite of the said position, the petitioner had refrained from appearing before the Enquiry Officer on the date, so fixed. It is submitted that the petitioner, having not appeared in the enquiry proceedings, the same was proceeded with by the Enquiry Officer and on conclusion of the same, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, on perusal of the enquiry report and therein, it having been brought on record that the charges framed against the petitioner stood established, proceeded vide order dated 10.01.2024, to impose a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. 5.5 It is submitted by the learned counsels for the parties that in the order dated 10.01.2024, a typographical error had occasioned in recording the relevant provisions under which the penalty was so imposed. It is submitted that in the order dated 10.01.2024, the provisions of Rule 7(20) of the Rules of 1964, was inadvertently projected to have been invoked for the purpose of imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. However, the said typographical error was subsequently rectified vide issuance of an order dated 05.07.2024 and the penalty was now shown to have been so imposed by invoking the provisions of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1964. It is submitted that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, vide the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 05.07.2024, having remained the same, along with the findings basing on which, such penalty was imposed, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the appeal, so preferred by him, in pursuance to the issuance of the order dated 10.01.2024. 5.6 The learned counsels for the respondents, have submitted that the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, is supported by the materials coming on record during the enquiry. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 25.08.2024, on considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal, proceeded to reject the same. 5.6 The learned counsels for the respondents, have submitted that the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, is supported by the materials coming on record during the enquiry. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 25.08.2024, on considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal, proceeded to reject the same. 5.7 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings so instituted against him, being of serious nature, the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, is proportionate to the said charges and the same would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. A departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner, herein, vide issuance of the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023. The reply submitted by the petitioner to the said show cause notice being found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held in the matter. 8. At this stage, it is to be noted that although, the show cause notice was not accompanied with a list of documents and/or a list of witnesses, the Disciplinary Authority, vide communication dated 07.10.2023, had furnished to the petitioner the copies of the documents that would now be relied upon in the enquiry against him for establishing the charges so framed against him in the said show cause notice, along with a list of witnesses, who would be deposing in favour of the department with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner. 9. It is seen that the Enquiry Officer, on being appointed had scheduled the hearing in the enquiry on 18.11.2023 and thereafter, had issued notices to the witnesses, who would be now deposing in the enquiry. Copies of the said notices are also seen to have been forwarded to the petitioner, herein. However, what is relevant to be noted is that there is no notice issued per se to the petitioner, requiring him to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the date to be so fixed. Accordingly, in absence of a notice being issued to him, requiring his presence before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had not appeared before the Enquiry officer on the dates, when the said enquiry was held. Accordingly, in absence of a notice being issued to him, requiring his presence before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had not appeared before the Enquiry officer on the dates, when the said enquiry was held. It is also noticed that the petitioner, not having appeared before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and concluded the same after recording the statements of the departmental witnesses deposing in the enquiry. 10. The respondents in the present writ petition have taken a plea to the effect that the petitioner, although, being informed about the date of hearing in the enquiry, the petitioner neglected/disobeyed and intentionally did not take part in the hearing of the proceedings. While the same contention was raised, the respondent authorities have failed to bring on record before this Court any material to establish that in fact notices were issued to the petitioner separately, requiring his appearance in the enquiry. 11. From the materials produced in the matter, this Court has found that the notices in the enquiry, were issued in a most casual manner. The Enquiry Officer had during the enquiry taken on record the written depositions made by the witnesses appearing before him. The records further does not reveal that the Enquiry Officer and for the matter, the Presenting Officer, had taken steps to ensure the presence of the petitioner in the enquiry and/or recorded a finding to the effect that inspite of notices being served upon the petitioner, requiring his presence in the enquiry, the petitioner had not participated, therein. 12. The said aspect of the matter would go to reveal that the petitioner in the enquiry was not afforded an opportunity to defend the charges framed against him. The manner, in which the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry against the petitioner, has resulted in the petitioner, being deprived of his right to cross-examine the witnesses, who had deposed in the enquiry against the petitioner. 13 . Sub Rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, mandates that the enquiring authority, in course of the enquiry, shall consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence, as may be relevant or material in regards to the charges. 13 . Sub Rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, mandates that the enquiring authority, in course of the enquiry, shall consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence, as may be relevant or material in regards to the charges. It further mandates that the Government Servant shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person and to adduce documentary and oral evidence in his defence. 14. The mandatory provisions of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, is found by this Court to have been violated in the enquiry, so held against the petitioner, in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023. The said violation has the effect of vitiating the enquiry so instituted against the petitioner and the enquiry report, being so submitted without permitting the petitioner to exercise his rights as conferred vide the provisions of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, the enquiry as well as the enquiry report submitted basing, thereon, stand vitiated. The enquiry report being submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the same is mandatorily required to be forwarded to the petitioner. The categorical contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that the copy of the enquiry report was not forwarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, has not been denied by the respondents. 15. The law in respect of the consequences that will entail upon non- furnishing of an enquiry report on the delinquent personnel is well established and is elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar,  1994 Supp (2) SCC 391 and several subsequent judgments where the view expressed in Managing Director, ECIL (supra) has been followed consistently. 16. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, it is apparent that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted by the respondent authorities against the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1964. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to have been conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1964 and therefore, the same is to be held to be not sustainable. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to have been conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1964 and therefore, the same is to be held to be not sustainable. The order of dismissal as imposed upon the petitioner, being so based on a vitiated enquiry, the same would also not be sustainable. 17. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court notices that the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 10.01.2024, had imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service. However, such penalty is found to have been so imposed, invoking the provisions of Rule 7(20) of the said Rules of 1964. 18. As noticed hereinabove, there is no Sub Rule (20) to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964. The Disciplinary Authority, however, rectified the said error occasioning in the order dated 10.01.2024, vide issuance of an order dated 05.07.2024. In the order dated 05.07.2024, the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1964. 19. The Disciplinary Authority, although, had passed two orders, imposing the penalty, however, it is seen that the same penalty continued to be imposed upon the petitioner, along with the same findings. It is further seen that the subsequent order dated 05.07.2024 was necessitated on account of a typographical error, existing in the initial order dated 10.01.2024. 20. This Court finds that on account of the issuance of the subsequent order dated 05.07.2024, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the appeal, inasmuch as, the penalty as imposed upon him continued to remain the same. Further, it is a settled position of law that a wrong quoting of a provision would not per se invalidate the order. 21. However, this Court having held that the impugned orders dated 10.01.2024 and 05.07.2024 to be not sustainable, this Court also holds that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.08.2024 to be also not sustainable. 22. In view of the above discussions, the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 05.07.2024, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, along with the Appellate Authority’s order dated 25.08.2024 stand set aside. 23. Having interfered with the impugned orders, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in his services. 22. In view of the above discussions, the orders dated 10.01.2024 and 05.07.2024, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, along with the Appellate Authority’s order dated 25.08.2024 stand set aside. 23. Having interfered with the impugned orders, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in his services. However, considering the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner, the petitioner be deemed to be under suspension, with effect from the date the penalty of dismissal from service was so imposed upon him. 24. Considering the serious nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court directs the respondent authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings from the stage pursuant to the submission of the show cause reply dated 30.10.2023, by the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner shall now consider the show cause reply dated 30.10.2023, submitted by the petitioner and in the event, the same is found to be not satisfactory, proceed to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter and for the purpose appoint an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding be proceeded against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure set out in this connection in the provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 9(A) of the said Rules of 1964. 25. The petitioner now having been directed to be deemed to have been placed under suspension, the petitioner would be entitled to his subsistence allowance from the date, he was dismissed from his services. The arrear subsistence allowance, as due to the petitioner, be released to the petitioner, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The disciplinary proceeding now permitted to be continued against the petitioner in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, be proceeded with and concluded within a period of 6 (six) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.