Later, when the Petitioner came to learn that the accused in the Sessions Case relating to the first charge had been convicted by the Sessions Court, she obtained a copy of the judgment and in pursuance of the liberty sought for in her Appeal, she filed an additional application before the Appellate Authority mentioning in detail the findings of the Sessions Judge in the Criminal Case with a copy of the judgment attached requesting for a review of the impugned decision. When she was waiting for a reply to the additional application by the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner came across a letter bearing dated 13.05.2014 written by the S.P., PHQ, addressed to the S.P. Gangtok, requesting circulation of a seniority list of Sub-Inspectors. In the seniority list, the Petitioner was found to have been placed at Sl. No. 84, instead of Sl. No. 13. Realising the gravity of the matter after having gone through the seniority list, which had been circulated for the first time, she approached an Advocate for legal advice and as advised by him, a legal notice was issued. It is submitted that the Petitioner was restrained from engaging any Advocate and had to defend herself in view of Rule 7(8) of the Rules of 1989, by which it is not permissible for her to do so unless the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner. It is averred that the Petitioner had been consistently pursuing with the concerned authorities for remedy and that ultimately it was only after she saw the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 13.05.2014 that she realised the gravity of the situation compelling her to engage a counsel. The Petitioner has given detailed reasons as to why the delay had occurred in approaching this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the fact as regards non-compliance of Rules has not been denied except to state, that the Petitioner’s record as Police Officer at Gyalshing Police Station was not satisfactory having been served with various show cause notices for lapses on her part, that the first charge was serious one, as she was held to be responsible for causing disappearance of exhibits in Gyalshing Police Station case and not forwarding the case exhibits to CID for onward transmission to CFSL for analysis and opinion and further, she had misled the entire chain of the command as well as the trial Court by not sending the seized exhibits including blood sample of the accused to CFSL for analysis while in all the documents of the case and the case diary she had mentioned that the exhibits had indeed been sent to CFSL for analysis, that she had been summoned by the Inquiry Officer in his office and had been given ample opportunity to go through the documents listed in Annexure III, that the Inquiry Officer did not examine any of the witnesses listed at Annexure IV to the Memorandum, as it was not felt necessary and had relied only on the case documents, that no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner as she being the Investigating Officer of the case, was aware of all the documents relied on by the Inquiry Officer, that inquiry report was a reasoned one and the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order after due application of mind and, it was only after careful perusal of the documents that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty of removal of the Petitioner from service by the impugned order dated 30.03.2012 and that the Appellate Authority was kind enough to set aside the order of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and reducing the Petitioner to the lowest stage in the pay band applicable to Sub-Inspectors and her seniority reduced. It is emphasised that the conviction of the accused in the criminal case by the Sessions Court was on the basis of circumstantial evidence and de hors the CFSL report, as the Exhibits had never been sent for examination and that this formed the crux of the departmental inquiry against the Petitioner. Apart from the above, it has been asserted that the Petitioner was guilty of delay and laches and also waiver and acquiescence. As the Petitioner had chosen to file Writ Petition only on 09.02.2015 when the impugned orders had been passed on 09.01.2012, 30.03.2012 and 23.06.2012, she had waived her right and, had also acquiesced in the position, she having accepted the orders passed by the Appellate Authority by reporting on duty. Since the Writ Petition was filed only after the seniority list was circulated in terms of letter dated 13.05.2014 by which she had been placed at the lowest place in the seniority list of the Sub-Inspectors, which as per the Respondent, also was a consequence of the impugned order dated 23.06.2012 of the Appellate Authority, the case being set up by the Petitioner was an afterthought. In his arguments, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, would seriously contend that the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner was not conducted fairly inasmuch as the mandatory rules prescribed under the Rules of 1989 had not been complied with. The impugned Memorandum dated 30.01.2012 was issued to her without giving her an opportunity to show cause as to why such a disciplinary proceeding should not be held against her. That the Petitioner had not been supplied with the statement of witnesses whose name appeared in the list attached to the Memorandum, thereby depriving her of the opportunity of cross-examining them. The documents mentioned in the list of documents were also not supplied to her. That the Petitioner was not informed as to when and where the inquiry proceedings were going to take place and, in fact, no inquiry proceedings at all took place. The documents were refused to be supplied in spite of Petitioner’s request and instead was only allowed to inspect them in the office of the Inquiry Officer even when it had been specifically conveyed to her by the AIG, PHQ in response to her request that the documents would be supplied if it was decided to hold a disciplinary proceedings against her. That the Appellate Authority also did not give the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence and the copy of the inquiry report was provided to her only after conclusion of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority. That neither was she informed of the date of hearing nor did any hearing take before the Appellate Authority thereby depriving the Petitioner the opportunity to place her case. The Petitioner was only handed over the impugned order which was passed ex parte by which Petitioner’s scale of pay was reduced placed at the lowest in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors. For the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that the Petitioner has been seriously prejudiced and her reputation, right to life and honour have been irreparably damaged. That the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged charges. It is further submitted that after conviction of the accused in the criminal case, the Petitioner had submitted an additional representation essentially for review of the order of punishment imposed upon her as the basis of the charges framed against her had been rendered non-existent.