JUDGMENT : Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department of the State of Bihar, and his Services were terminated by the ORDER :as contained in Annexure-5, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. An appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 2) as per his ORDER :in Annexure-6. The petitioner, before coming to this Court, also moved a memorial under Rule 853 of the Bihar Police Manual. 2. A departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on the basis of the charges included in Annexure-1. It was said that he has absent on 13.7.1975 voluntarily without leave or information to his higher officers. The second charge alleged that the petitioner was arrested in West Bengal in suspicious circumstances when he had, on enquiry by the Bengal Police, given a false name and incorrect identity. 3. In his show cause, Annexure-2, the petitioner stated that his duty hours on 13.7.1975 were during the night and it was only during the day that he had gone to a nearby village in the State of Bengal in search of a bridegroom where he was arrested at the instance of an enemy. He did not commit any offence and had intended to be back by the evening for attending to his duties. He has mentioned many detailed circumstances in support of his defence. On enquiry, however, the Police Inspector, Baghmara, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, held him guilty and recommended stiff punishment. Although the report has been attached to the application as Annexure-3 the Enquiry Officer has not been impleaded as a party. The Superintendent of Police, respondent no. 3 by his ORDER :in Annexure-4, held that the petitioner was certainly guilty of the first charge i.e. absence without leave, even if his defence to the second charge be accepted. The respondent called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why be should not be dismissed from service. After receiving the petitioner's second reply, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned ORDER :in Annexure 5, holding that the petitioner had not mentioned any new matter, which could induce the officer to change his earlier decision regarding the punishment, specially as the petitioner had in the past was punished by two Black Marks. 4. After receiving the petitioner's second reply, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned ORDER :in Annexure 5, holding that the petitioner had not mentioned any new matter, which could induce the officer to change his earlier decision regarding the punishment, specially as the petitioner had in the past was punished by two Black Marks. 4. In the writ application attempt has been made to challenge the entire departmental proceeding including the report of the Enquiry Officer Annexure-3. However, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was absent for several days from 13th July, 1975 without leave, Mr. Kapildeo Singh did not seriously pursue this part of the case, but challenged the finding in Annexure-3, as perverse on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had made a recommendation for inflicting a serious punishment. Reliance was placed on the observations in Krishna Chandra Tandon v. The Union of India 1974 (2) S.L.R. 178. I am afraid, the decision does not support the argument of the learned counsel. In that case, which was decided by the Supreme Court, the Enquiry Officer did not make any recommendation with regard to the punishment and the observations in paragraph 21 of the JUDGMENT : are not helpful to the petitioner at all. Mr. Singh urged that as a general principle if an Enquiry Officer makes a suggestion as to the punishment to be inflicted, his report should be rejected as unworthy. I am not able to persuade myself to agree with him. While making an enquiry, the officer is under a duty to examine the evidence led by the delinquent as well as the department, as also the relevant circumstances and to express his opinion on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the accusation. It is, of course, not necessary for him to suggest the appropriate punishment; but if he does so, it merely indicates as to his view on the gravity of delinquency on the basis of the evidence before him and no inference of perverseness on his part can be drawn from it. 5. The main argument of Mr. Kapildeo Singh is directed against the nature of punishment which has been characterised as disproportionately harsh in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel has also urged that the respondent no. 3 has violated the provisions of the Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual. 6. 5. The main argument of Mr. Kapildeo Singh is directed against the nature of punishment which has been characterised as disproportionately harsh in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel has also urged that the respondent no. 3 has violated the provisions of the Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual. 6. Rule 826 states that the punishment awarded should be in conformity with the gravity of offence with which the officer is charged and offences involving moral turpitude should be carefully discriminated from amaller wrong doings. Rule 843 directs wilful overstayal of leave, or absence from duty without leave, to be treated as misbehaviour. The absence from duty per se cannot be suggested to be involving moral turpitude. The second sentence of Rule 843 which recommends granting of leave admissible to an officer for the period for which he remains absent without prior leave in appropriate circumstances, also suggests that absence by itself is not to be treated very seriously. The second paragraph of Rule 826 which is quoted below may also be considered in the present context :- “The objective of awarding punishment is firstly to keep a record of the wrong doings of the officer and secondly as a measure of correction to alert him to improve his work and conduct. Several punishments awarded in one lot such as during inspections which do not provide an opportunity to the delinquent officer to improve himself are not likely to be helpful. In any case, the punishment cannot be awarded without carefully considering the defence of the delinquent officer.” Mr. Singh, therefore, appears to be right in arguing that the respondents ought to have considered the provisions of Rule 826 before taking a final decision, which has not been done. 7. The second objection of the learned counsel that the previous punishment of the petitioner should not have been taken into account is also well founded. The last sentence of first paragraph of Rule 826 reads as follows:- “It should also be borne in mind that the previous record of service of the officer concerned, if it is not already included in the charge of the proceeding shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum of punishment.” The charge or the enquiry report does not mention the previous unsatisfactory record of service of the petitioner. In the writ application the petitioner has not accepted the fact as correct and has asserted that if he had been given a chance he would have proved to the satisfaction of the respondents that his records of service were satisfactory. The impugned ORDER :, Annexure-5 has positively relied on the petitioner's earning two Black Marks in the past. This should not have been done. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned ORDER :s in Annexnres 5, 6 and 7 are quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that since the matter is very old it should now be dropped at this stage. After considering the circumstances of the case, I do not agree with him. I therefore, remit the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, for passing fresh ORDER :s in the departmental proceeding. It will not be necessary to hold a fresh enquiry as the proceeding till the stage of the submission of the enquiry report Annexure-3, is maintained as legal. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed, but in the circumstances without costs.