The mandatory procedures laid down in Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, must be followed in disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant, and any violation thereof may vitiate the proceedings.

The petitioner, while working as Sub-Divisional Officer in the P. W. D., Government of Mizoram, was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings by the Order No. CON. 4/PW/7I/18 dt. 19.10.74, of the Lt. Governor, Mizoram, passed in exercise of power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 shortly CCSCCA Rules. On the same day, by another Order No. CON. 4/PW/74/19 dated 19. 10.74, the Disci­plinary Authority appointed Shri Robula, Executive Engineer, P. W. D., Aizwal as the Inquiry Officer to hold domestic enquiry in the charges framed against the petitioner and enclosed a copy of the charge sheet drawn against the petitioner with the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charges. The list of witnesses and the list of documents by which the articles of charges were sought to be established were also given. The copy of the said letter with copy of the charge sheet appears to have been forwarded to the petitioner under Memo No. CON. 4/PW/74/20 dated 19th October, 1974. From records it, however, docs not appear that memo of charge sheet with imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour was served on the petitioner separately by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner appears to have been confused and instead of submitting the reply to disciplinary authority, he submitted the same to the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was charged with the allegation of attempting to inflate the amount of bill of a contractor by interpolation of relevant records. The Inquiry Officer by letter No. Misc. 6?/84/CON/ Oil dated 12.9.75 addressed to the Secretary, P. W. D., Government of Mizoram, submitted synopsis of the statement of witnesses of the disciplinary authority and facts in brief found from the documents received and collected by him. On being asked to give his finding the Inquiry Officer, subsequently by Memo No. 53/78 dated 1.3.76 submitted his finding on the basis of the enquiry, stating that from the evidences on records, it was clear that the charged officer (Petitioner) tried to increase the amount of passed bill but the Executive Engineer detected its correction. On receipt of the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Government by Memo No. dated 21.5.76 asked the petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause on 25.5.76 and thereafter the Govt. of Mizoram by the impugned order dated 17.8.76 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner made an appeal to the appellate authority. In the appeal the petiti­oner amongst other stated that reasonable opportunity was denied to him and Inquiry Officer denied him the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that order was arbitrary and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.10.81. Being aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition.

2. Mr. S. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding including the so called inquiry proceeding is arbitrary and is vitiated by violation of the mandatory provision of CCSCCA Rules as well as principles of natural justice and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be set aside and the petitioner be re­instated in service with full back wages etc. The petitioner in the petition has specifically alleged that witnesses were not examined in his presence by the Inquiry Officer and consequently he did not get opportunity to cross-examine them. Moreover, documents collected behind his back were relied upon without presenting the same in the enquiry proceedings. That contention is denied by the respondent in the affidavit-in-opposition. The Standing Counsel of the Govt. of Mizoram, on the other hand, has submitted that the e