ORDER : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mousam Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Public Works Department. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to the order dated 17-10-2022, issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Road) Assam, imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of 01 (one) annual increment without cumulative effect and further holding that the period of suspension of the petitioner be treated as non-duty for all purposes. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition are noticed, as under. The petitioner, herein, was issued with a show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, inter alia, alleging, therein, that the petitioner while serving as a Section Assistant under Golaghat Rural Road Division, was found to be very irregular in attendance of his duties. It was further alleged that the petitioner was found to be functioning as an active journalist of Golaghat Press Club for last several years. It was further alleged that the petitioner on being issued with an order of transfer and being released from his place of posting at Golaghat Rural Road Division, had failed to join at his transferred place of posting, inspite of notices being issued to him including notices published in newspapers. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice dated 13-01-2016. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter. The Enquiry Officer's report having been submitted, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded vide order dated 29.02.2016, to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, herein. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service upon him, assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C)No.2979/2016. This Court analogously heard the said writ petition along with another writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No.1121/2016. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service upon him, assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C)No.2979/2016. This Court analogously heard the said writ petition along with another writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No.1121/2016. On a consideration of the issues arising in the matter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, proceeded vide order dated 08-06-2016, to dispose of the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2979/2016, interfering with the order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, i.e., the order dated 29-02-2016. This Court further directed that on the interference being made with the order of dismissal, the order of suspension as issued to the petitioner would stand revived and the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension, i.e., w.e.f., 07-09-2015. This Court further granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to institute a fresh enquiry against him in the matter but restrained the authorities from carrying out such enquiry by engaging the already engaged Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. This Court required the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a new set of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and to complete the enquiry by following the procedure as mandated under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964. It is found that after the passing of the said order dated 08-06-2016, by this Court, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide order dated 25-07-2016, revoked the order of dismissal as passed in the matter against him and placed the petitioner under suspension till finalization of the Departmental proceedings instituted against him. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25-07-2016, proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer for conduct of the enquiry against the petitioner, herein. It is projected that the Presenting Officer as appointed now to carry forward the enquiry ordered in the matter against the petitioner is the same Presenting Officer, who was so appointed in the 1 st enquiry as carried out in the matter against the petitioner which was interfered by this Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2016. It is further projected that the said Enquiry Officer now appointed had submitted his enquiry report in the matter, however, a copy, thereof, was not furnished to the petitioner. It is further projected that the said Enquiry Officer now appointed had submitted his enquiry report in the matter, however, a copy, thereof, was not furnished to the petitioner. Further it is projected that the petitioner had also not participated in the said enquiry. As the matter stood such, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 05-06- 2017, proceeded to direct for a fresh enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner vide the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, and accordingly proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer in the matter. The Enquiry Officer entered into the enquiry. Further, the materials brought on the Court reveals that the enquiry was held and on conclusion, thereof, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 12-01-2018. It is the projection of the petitioner that he was not issued with any notice regarding the conduct of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, now appointed vide the order dated 05-06-2017. The Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the Enquiry Report proceeded vide order dated 17-10-2022, to consider the 03 (three) enquiry reports brought on record in the matter, with regard to the enquiries instituted against the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, and concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner, therein, stood established. On such conclusion being reached, the penalty of withholding of 01 (one) annual increment without cumulative effect came to be imposed upon the petitioner. Further, the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner opined that the same shall not be treated as on duty for all purposes. In other words, the petitioner was held to be entitled only to receive the subsistence allowance already paid to him and nothing further for the period of suspension. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 4. Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that a penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner, having, being interfered with by this Court in the proceedings of W.P. (C)No.2979/2016, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to ensure that a fair enquiry is conducted in the matter against the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted by this Court vide the order dated 08-06-2016. He submits that the 1 st enquiry as conducted against the petitioner which had led to the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service upon him, having been interfered by this Court in the 2 nd enquiry as held after issuance of the order dated 25-07-2016, the petitioner was denied a due opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the said enquiry without allowing the petitioner to participate, therein. He submits that the notice of the said enquiry was not served upon the petitioner. He further submits that the inquiry report as submitted in the matter in pursuance to the 2 nd enquiry was also not served upon the petitioner and accordingly, he did not have an opportunity to place on record his clarifications with regard to the findings that may have been recorded against him in the enquiry report. Mr. Nath, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reason for the purpose, had proceeded to direct for a fresh enquiry vide order dated 05-06-2017, and appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer for the purpose. Mr. Nath, submits that perusal of the order dated 05-06-2017, would reveal that a copy of the said order was also not marked to the petitioner, herein. He further submits that the said enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner as the petitioner was not served a copy of a notice with regard to the conduct of such enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Nath, submits that the petitioner was in dark as regards the conduct of the 2 nd enquiry as well as the 3 rd enquiry in the matter. 5. Mr. M. Nath, submits that it is in the said above background that the order dated 17- 10-2022, is to be appreciated by this Court. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of concluding the guilt of the petitioner with regard to the charges framed against him, had in the order dated 17-10-2022, considered the Enquiry Reports of the 03 (three) enquiries, held in the matter. He submits that the 1st enquiry report having already been interfered by this Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 08-06-2016, the same could not have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of  imposition of any penalty upon the petitioner, herein. With regard to the 2nd and 3rd enquiry reports, Mr. He submits that the 1st enquiry report having already been interfered by this Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 08-06-2016, the same could not have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of  imposition of any penalty upon the petitioner, herein. With regard to the 2nd and 3rd enquiry reports, Mr. Nath, submits that a copy, thereof, having never been furnished to the petitioner, even if, it is assumed that the petitioner had notices of the said enquiries being conducted, the same could not have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposition of a penalty upon the petitioner, herein. Mr. Nath, submits that the manner in which the penalties were imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 17-10-2022, would mandate an interference and accordingly, submits that the order dated 17-10-2022, be set aside by this Court. Mr. Nath, submits that the petitioner is presently continuing in his services. 6. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Council for the PWD, at the outset has furnished to this Court the Departmental Proceedings records for perusal. He submits that after the passing of the Judgment & Order dated 08-06-2016, the Disciplinary Authority had in terms of the liberty as granted by this Court proceeded to hold a fresh enquiry in the matter against the petitioner and for the purpose, had appointed vide order dated 25-07- 2016, an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. He submits that a notice of the said enquiry was issued to the petitioner, however, he refused to participate in the enquiry so held. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the enquiry had submitted his report, i.e., the 2 nd enquiry report. Mr. Dhar, further submits that the Disciplinary Authority in all probability noticing the fact that the Presenting Officer involved in the 1 st enquiry having been reappointed, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to direct for holding of a fresh enquiry in the matter against the petitioner and vide order dated 05-06-2017, proceeded to appoint a new set of Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. Mr. Dhar, submits that the notices of the said enquiry, as evident from the records, were issued to petitioner, herein, however, the petitioner did not participate in the said enquiry. Mr. Dhar, submits that the notices of the said enquiry, as evident from the records, were issued to petitioner, herein, however, the petitioner did not participate in the said enquiry. He submits that the Enquiry Officer, thereafter, proceeded ex-parte in the matter and submitted his enquiry report on 12-01-2018. Mr. Dhar, submits that the petitioner having had notices of the enquiries conducted against him more particularly the   2nd enquiry as well as the 3rd enquiry, his non participation in the said enquiries is clearly willful and he cannot be permitted to take advantage, thereof. Mr. Dhar, by drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 17-10-2022, has submitted that the said order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner after appreciating, the materials coming on record in the 03 (three) enquiry proceedings, held against the petitioner. He submits that the enquiry reports having established the guilt of the petitioner in the matter, the Disciplinary Authority had considered the matter leniently and only penalty of withholding of 01 (one) annual increment of the petitioner and that to without cumulative effect came to be passed in the matter. He submits that in view of the facts involved in the matter the impugned order dated 17.10.2022, would not mandate any interference. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The records of the Departmental proceedings as furnished by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, has also been perused. 9. The challenge in the present proceedings, being to the order dated 17.10.2022, the relevant portion, thereof, is extracted, hereinbelow; “Read the show cause notice, the reply in statement in defence submitted by the Delinquent Official vide his letter No. Nill dt. 29.06.2016 and enquiry report of 1 Inquiry officer submitted vide No. CEE/CON/21/2015/Pt/3 dt. 29.02.2016 (ii) Enquiry Report of 2nd Inquiry officer submitted vide No. ACE/CON/08/2016/6 dt. 23.09.2016 and (ii) Enquiry Report of 3 Inquiry officer submitted vide No. ACE/CON/08/2016 dt 12.01.2018 it is established that in the findings of the enquiry report of the Inquiry officers and after examining the written statement of Sri Diganta Kr. Bhuyan (delinquent official concerned) that the involvement of the delinquent as a journalist and his non performance of Govt. duties have been vindicated and the charge dtd. 13.01.2016 is held to be "Proved" Sri Diganta Kr. Bhuyan (delinquent official concerned) that the involvement of the delinquent as a journalist and his non performance of Govt. duties have been vindicated and the charge dtd. 13.01.2016 is held to be "Proved" Sri Diganta Kr. Bhuyan (Delinquent official did not give any importance to the news papers notice asking him to join in his new place of posting nor did he place any representation or expressed his unwillingness to join his duties. His failure to join in his duties or his unwillingness even to make contact with the office establishment show his callousness and in difference to Govt. instruction and the charge is held to be "true", Order: (i) After careful examination of all aspects and considering the facts and findings of the enquiry report of the Inquiry Officers and Govt. letter No. RBEB 83/2020/50, dt. 17.08.2022, the Departmental proceeding drawn up against Sri Diganta Kr. Bhuyan, S.A. (under suspension) vide this office letter No. CEE/CON/21/2015/6, dt. 13.01.2016 is hereby dropped. As such suspension order issued vide this office order No. CEE/CON/21/2015/3 dt. 07.09.2015 is hereby vacated and he is re-instated in service with immediate effect with following penalties. (i) One Annual increment of Sri Diganta Kr. Bhuyan, S.A. be stopped without cumulative effect. (ii) The period of suspension of Sri Diganta Kr. Bhuyan, S.A. be treated as NON duty for all purpose.” 10. On a perusal of the said order dated 17-10-2022, it is revealed the Enquiry Officer for drawing satisfaction with regard to the charges leveled against the petitioner in the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, had appreciated the enquiry reports submitted in the matter in pursuance to the 03 (three) enquiries held against the petitioner as noticed, hereinabove. Upon drawing satisfaction from the 03 (three) enquiry reports coming on record, the Disciplinary Authority had proceeded to impose the penalty as imposed vide the order dated 17-10-2022. The Disciplinary Authority having drawn satisfaction in the matter, basing on the 03 (three) enquiry reports available coming on record in the matter, this Court would now examine the said enquiry reports. The 1 st enquiry report submitted in the matter after issuance of the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, had led to the imposition of a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, herein. The 1 st enquiry report submitted in the matter after issuance of the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, had led to the imposition of a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, herein. The said penalty imposed vide order dated 29-02-2016, being challenged before this Court by the petitioner in the proceedings of W.P.(C) No.2979/2016, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08-06-2016, had proceeded to interfere with the said order of penalty. Consequently, the enquiry report which had formed the basis of the order of penalty dated 29-02-2016, also stood interfered with. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposing the penalty upon the petitioner vide the order dated 17-10-2022, could not have relied upon the 1 st enquiry report, inasmuch as, the same is deemed to have been already interfered with by this Court. 11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08-06-2016, upon interfering with the penalty order dated 29-02-2016, had granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to hold a fresh Departmental proceeding against the petitioner by appointing a new set of Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer and by following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. This Court finds that the said liberty was exercised by the Disciplinary Authority and vide order dated 25-07-2016, a fresh enquiry was ordered and an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer came to be appointed. It is to be noted that the Presenting Officer appointed was the same Presenting Officer who had acted as the Presenting Officer in the first Departmental enquiry held against the petitioner, herein. It is the contention of the  petitioner that he was not allowed to participate in the 2nd Enquiry. Be that as it may, the enquiry being so conducted was in violation of the directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08-06-2016 in W.P.(C) No.2979/2016, as the same Presenting Officer, involved in the 1st enquiry held against the petitioner came to be again  appointed. Accordingly, the 2nd enquiry in the considered view of this Court cannot be termed to be a legal enquiry. Resultantly, the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposition of the penalty vide the order dated 17-10-2022, could not have placed the  reliance on the material coming on record in the 2nd enquiry. 12. Accordingly, the 2nd enquiry in the considered view of this Court cannot be termed to be a legal enquiry. Resultantly, the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposition of the penalty vide the order dated 17-10-2022, could not have placed the  reliance on the material coming on record in the 2nd enquiry. 12. The said developments having taken place, the Disciplinary Authority in all probability realizing the error committed in conducting the 2 nd enquiry by appointing the same very Presenting Officer, proceeded to direct for holding of a 3 rd enquiry in the matter against the petitioner and vide Office Order dated 05-06-2017, proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer for the purpose. It is seen that the said enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner, herein. 13. A perusal of the original records of the Departmental proceedings, held against the petitioner, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report dated 12.01.2018 (3 rd enquiry report), had not drawn any findings in the matter with regard to the service of notice of the enquiry upon the petitioner. Further, there is no conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report as to whether the charges leveled against the petitioner stood established. The Disciplinary Authority basing on the said enquiry report had drawn a conclusion with regard to the guilt of the appellant pertaining to the charges framed against him and the charges framed against him were held to be proved. This Court finds that in the 3 rd enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the procedures laid down under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, admittedly were not followed. A copy of the said enquiry report was admittedly not furnished to the petitioner. The manner of conduct of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer leaves much to be desired. A casual approach on the part of the respondent authorities is writ large on the face of the records. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the procedure mandated under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, having not been followed and a copy of the enquiry report not being furnished to the petitioner, the entire enquiry conducted in the matter stood vitiated. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the procedure mandated under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, having not been followed and a copy of the enquiry report not being furnished to the petitioner, the entire enquiry conducted in the matter stood vitiated. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority could not have taken into account the 3 rd enquiry report for the purpose of drawing satisfaction with regard to the guilt of the petitioner, herein. 14. In absence of any legal evidence coming on record in the 3rd enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had no material to base his conclusions upon. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that basing on the 3rd enquiry report also it was not permissible to impose any penalty upon the petitioner, herein. It is further noticed by this Court from the records that the documents relied upon were not proved in the enquiry through the deposition of witnesses. Accordingly, this fortifies the view that no legal evidence came to be adduced even in the 3rd enquiry held against the petitioner in the matter. 15. For the reasons as noticed, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that none of the 03 (three) enquiry reports relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 17-10-2022, for arriving at a conclusion with regard to the guilt of the petitioner pertaining to the charges framed against him in the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016, was permissible to be so considered. The basis for the imposition of the penalty upon the petitioner being the 3 (three) Enquiry Reports coming on record, this Court having already concluded that the enquiries held against the petitioner to have been vitiated, the order dated 17.10.2022 would not be sustainable and would mandate an interference. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 17-10-2022 stands set aside. The penalties as imposed upon the petitioner would also stand interfered with. The Departmental Authorities having been already granted an opportunity to proceed afresh against the petitioner, herein, and the said opportunity having been found by this Court to have not been utilized by the respondent authorities, this Court refrains from passing any further direction permitting the respondent authorities to carry out afresh enquiry in the matter with regard to the charges so framed against the petitioner in the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016. Accordingly, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner would now have the effect of interfering even with the show cause notice dated 13-01-2016 (Refer to Dharampal Arora Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board , reported in (2006) 13 SCC 593 ). Consequently, the period of suspension of the petitioner would now be regularized as on duty and the petitioner shall be released his arrear salaries for the said period after deduction of the amount of subsistence allowance paid to him during this period of suspension. 17. It is further provided that in the event the petitioner has any grievance with regard to his posting, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by way of submission of representation. In the event of submission of any representation by the petitioner, the same shall be considered on its own merits and disposed of by the respondent authorities. 18. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.