JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Deputy Director, Fire & Emergency Services, Guwahati whereby the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect in terms with Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was not provided the inquiry report, and as such, the petitioner was prejudiced. It is the further case of the petitioner that after requesting the Respondent Authorities on three occasions, only on 30.06.2025, the petitioner was provided the inquiry report. The said inquiry report so provided to the petitioner on 30.06.2025 has been enclosed to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner as Annexure-2. 4. The question therefore arises is in the facts and circumstances of the case whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition though taken up at the stage of motion, but in view of various orders passed by the learned Coordinate Benches, the respondents have already filed their affidavit. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit pursuant to the leave granted by the learned Coordinate Bench in its order dated 21.07.2025. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore takes up the instant writ petition for disposal. 5. The materials on record and more particularly the inquiry report enclosed as Annexure-2 to the additional affidavit shows that a departmental proceedings was initiated with the following allegations, which being relevant, is reproduced herein under:- “ Statement of allegation While you were posted Moirabari F&ES Station, a letter of complaint against you has been received from your wife namely Dilruba Alam. She has stated in the letter that after marriage you have ill-treated her quite often for dowry and also on dated 02.10.2017 you had made a conspiracy to murder her by feeding pesticide mixed juice. In this regard, a case has been registered against you at Rupahi PS (Nagaon District) vide Case No. 469/2017 U/S 498(A)/328/307. She has stated in the letter that after marriage you have ill-treated her quite often for dowry and also on dated 02.10.2017 you had made a conspiracy to murder her by feeding pesticide mixed juice. In this regard, a case has been registered against you at Rupahi PS (Nagaon District) vide Case No. 469/2017 U/S 498(A)/328/307. On the other hand, you have been remaining unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f. 08.09.2017 AM to till date without any leave or permission from the competent authority.” 6. From a perusal of the above quoted Statement of Allegation, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner was that a complaint was received from the wife of the petitioner that the petitioner had conspired to murder her by feeding pesticide mixed juice, and in that regard, a case was registered against the petitioner being Rupohi PS (Nagaon District) Case No. 469/2017, under Sections 498A/328/307 IPC. It was also alleged that the petitioner had remained in unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 08.09.2017 till date without leave or permission from the competent authority. 7. This Court has also perused the inquiry report dated 22.02.2018 wherein it was opined that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case after marriage with his second wife and he had taken advice of the doctor, Nagaon Civil Hospital, and he had sent his brother with an application along with doctor's prescription to the I/C Moirabari F&ES for extension of the leave and reported in his duty on 09.12.2017 after 93 days interval. The inquiry report further does not discuss anything more, but only holds that the charges framed against the petitioner as gross misconduct and indiscipline act being a member of the disciplined force was proved beyond doubt. 8. A perusal of the inquiry report show that what was enquired into is different from the charge alleged in so far as the question of unauthorized leave is concerned. This aspect would be apparent from the Statement of Allegation as quoted above wherein the charge was that the petitioner was on unauthorized leave from 08.09.2017 to the date of Memorandum of Charge, i.e. 21.10.2017 which is 42 days, but the findings in the report is that the petitioner was on unauthorized leave for 93 days. There is also no discussion on what basis the said finding of fact was arrived at in the inquiry report. There is also no discussion on what basis the said finding of fact was arrived at in the inquiry report. A finding based on something which is not a part of the Statement of Allegation, would be violative of the principles of natural justice. In addition to that, it is also the opinion of this Court that the finding that the petitioner was on unauthorized leave for 93 days is not based upon any materials and discussion of materials which renders the said findings perverse. 9. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the decision of the learned Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon dated 27.04.2023 wherein it was opined that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused person, i.e. the petitioner, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was found not guilty and he was acquitted in respect to the same case, i.e. Rupohihat PS Case No.469/2017. It may not be out of place to note that merely because a criminal case is lodged, it would not amount to misconduct unless it is found upon inquiry that the delinquent employee had committed misconduct and his employment was unbecoming of a government servant. There is no finding in that respect by the Inquiry Officer. 10. This Court also duly takes note of that though the petitioner was issued the second show cause notice after the inquiry report, but admittedly the inquiry report was not provided to the petitioner as would be very much apparent from the affidavit which has been filed by the respondents wherein it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was only informed about the contents of the inquiry report. 11. The above aspects also show that there was a gross violation to the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty by the impugned communication order dated 20.04.2018 cannot be sustained in law. Further to that, an order based on a perfunctory inquiry report also cannot be allowed to stand. 12. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant petition with the following observations and directions:- (i) The inquiry report dated 22.02.2018 as well as the order dated 20.04.2018 are set aside and quashed. Further to that, an order based on a perfunctory inquiry report also cannot be allowed to stand. 12. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant petition with the following observations and directions:- (i) The inquiry report dated 22.02.2018 as well as the order dated 20.04.2018 are set aside and quashed. (ii) Taking into account that the order dated 20.04.2018 is set aside and quashed, the petitioner would be entitled to all such benefits which the petitioner otherwise would have been entitled to but was not granted in view of the impugned order dated 20.04.2018. (iii) The respondents and more particularly the respondent No.2 are directed to carry out the necessary computation and pay the petitioner his arrears within a period of four months from the date of service of the certified copy of this judgment. (iv) The respondents shall also regularize the period pertaining to the penalty imposed upon the petitioner within the aforesaid period of four months in view of setting aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2018. (v) There shall be no order as too costs.