WP(C) 3873/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N. N. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents. As agreed to final orders in the writ petition are being passed at the admission stage. On the basis of an order dated 12.2.2009 issued by the High Court with regard to initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner drew up a memorandum of charges and thereafter appointed the Additional District & Se ssions Judge (FTC), Barpeta, as the Enquiry Officer. The memorandum of charges w as sent to the Enquiry Officer with a direction to start the enquiry. This was b y letter dated 2.5.2009 of the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta. Thereafter it appears that by a communication dated 4.7.2009 the Enquiry Officer i.e. the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta communicated the m emorandum of charges to the petitioner and asked him to file his written stateme nt and also appear before the Enquiry Officer on 30.7.2009. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the disciplinary proceeding initiated a gainst the petitioner has been challenged on the ground of defect in procedure r esulting in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Enqui ry Officer was appointed even without consideration of the written statement of the petitioner. The disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is required to be g overned by the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 196 4. Under the said Rules once a memorandum of charges is drawn up the same is req uired to be furnished to the charged officer who has a right to file a written s tatement. It is only upon consideration of the written statement filed by the ch arged officer that the disciplinary authority is required to consider whether a departmental enquiry is required to be conducted and, if so, appoint an Enquiry Officer. The written statement is required to be considered in a fair and balan ced manner by the disciplinary authority with a view to finding out whether form al proceedings of enquiry are required. This has not been done in the present ca se. Sri S. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, received, h as submitted that in the present case a mistake, indeed, has cropped up and ther efore he has left the matter for a just determination by the Court. Having considered the matter in its entirety we are of the view that under the A ssam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 the petitioner has a right to fi le a written statement before a decision to hold an enquiry is taken. The said r ight has been violated in the present case. We are, therefore, of the view that some prejudice has been caused to the petitioner which would require correction at our hands. We, therefore, interfere with the order dated 2.5.2009 appointing the Enquiry Officer and direct the disciplinary proceeding to commence from the stage of furnishing of the memo of charges to the writ petitioner. The disciplin ary authority of the writ petitioner will act accordingly. The writ petition shall stand closed in terms of the above directions.