P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the state Respondents.

2. The Petitioner was working as S.I. in the establishment of 2nd APR Bn. and at the relevant time he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Miao Police Station in Changlang District. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charges, amongst other, of injuring his wife by firing from his service revolver. A memorandum along with the article of charges was served upon him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (E), Arunachal Pradesh, vide letter dated 8.3.1997. Thereafter, by an order dated 8.3.1997 issued by the Deputy Director General of Police (E) appointed one Shri J. Tayeng, Dy. S.P. of Changlang as the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner. The inquiry was conducted accordingly by the Enquiry Officer.

3. A statement was made by Smti. Limi Nomuk, wife of the Petitioner on 13.1.1998 stating inter alia that the allegations made against her husband are totally false and baseless. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and on completion of the inquiry submitted a report. The Enquiry Officer gave his opinion that the charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved. A copy of the inquiry report was also furnished to the Petitioner so as to enable him to make representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accepting the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority discharged the Petitioner from service with immediate effect by an order dated 5th November, 2002 issued by the Respondent No. 4, Commandant, 2nd APP Battalion. Along which was communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. P-014/DA/2nd/BN/SI/NK/96 dated 7th November, 2002. Against the aforesaid discharge order, the Petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police (West) vide order dated 13th February, 2003. The Petitioner then filed an application for revision of the order dated 13.2.2003 before the Respondent No. 2, Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh on 18.2.2003. The said application was considered by the Respondent No. 2 and it was not only rejected but modified the punishment by imposing order of dismissal from service vide Order No. PHQ®DP-09/97 dated 10th September, 2003, the said dismissal order is under challenge in the present writ proceeding.

4. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the inquiry proceeding as conducted by the Respondent authorities are vitiated as no "Presenting Officer" was appointed for conducting the inquiry as required under Rule 14(5)(c) of the CCS (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" only) and the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the allegations/charges brought against the Petitioner. Mr. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel also submits that the appointment of a Presenting Officer is not only a mere formality but it is a mandatory requirement provided under the Statutory Rules and it is the established law that the disciplinary proceeding conducted without appointing the "Presenting Officer" would vitiate the entire inquiry proceeding and the punishment awarded after such inquiry is liable to be quashed as illegal.

5. In this case, according to Mr. Baruah, the "Presenting Officer" having not been appointed, the "Enquiry Officer" concerned has acted as Prosecutor and as a Judge himself which is not permissible under the law. In support of his submission, he has referred to the case of Dr. Rajyamalla Bujorbaruah vs. State of Assam reported in (1983) 1 GLR 130.

6. As regard the punishment, it is submitted by Mr. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel that the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and disproportionate to the allegation leveled against th