Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5785/2003, dismissing the same. The writ Petitioner therein had challenged the decision to dismiss her from the service of the Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board, Guwahati (hereafter for short referred to as the Board).

2. We have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. N.C. Baruah, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.C. Choudhury, Advocate for the Respondent Board.

3. The run up of facts to the instant appeal, in brief, has to be outlined. The Appellant was appointed as Lower Division Assistant (hereafter, for short referred to as the LDA) under the Board vide order dated 09.01.1975. Being sick she availed medical leave from 15.05.1994 to 23.06.1994. As even thereafter she did not recover and had to remain under medical treatment, she could not join her duties. She returned being cured in the last part of August, 1996, but was not allowed to join her post when she went to the office therefor. Initially she was informed that her services have been terminated and, eventually, she was handed over a copy of the order dated 20.01.1996 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board removing her from service for irresponsible conduct, negligence to duty, insubordination and arrogance. Being aggrieved, the Appellant submitted representation before the higher authorities of the Board and other fora and, eventually, on the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, an officer thereof was entrusted to enquire against the imputations, which had led to her ouster. The Inquiry Officer, by his letter dated 24.01.2002 having required her to appear in the inquiry, she participated therein. According to her, she was not permitted to take the assistance of a person of her choice as her defence assistant. Besides, no formal charge sheet was served on her and the procedure otherwise prescribed by law for such an inquiry was not followed as well. Finally the Inquiry Officer submitted his report, on the basis whereof, by order dated 15.05.2002 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, she was dismissed from service. Situated thus, she approached this Court with W.P. (C) No. 5785/2002 assailing the impugned decision (s) of her dismissal from service and also the procedure undertaken therefor.

The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2007, impugned herein, rejected the writ petition, firstly, in view of the failure on the part of the writ Appellant to annex a copy of the enquiry report which was construed to be a callous and careless inaction on her part and secondly, as the allegations against her as contained in the impugned decision (s) did not justify any interference.

4. Mr. Dasgupta has urged that as the inquiry preceding the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 5.4.2002 by no means is one contemplated under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereafter for short referred to as the Rules), the impugned order of dismissal dated 15.05.2002 is, per se, non est in law. According to the learned Counsel, the prescriptions of Rule 9 being mandatory in nature, no departure there from is permissible and as in the instant case a major penalty of dismissal has been meted out to the Appellant without conducting a disciplinary proceeding strictly in terms of the above legal provision, the learned Single Judge had erred in law and on facts in rejecting the writ petition. As no semblance of compliance of the peremptory safeguards engrafted in Rule 9 of the Rules is discernible in the fact finding inquiry that was conducted, the impugned decision (s) are liable to be annulled, he urged.

5. Mr. Baruah, in reply, has argued that the Appellant having remained unauthorizedly absent from duties from 24.08.1994, a notice dated 09.02.1995 was issued requiring her to join immediately and she having failed to do so, the said notice was published in the issue dated 1