Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5-10-1985 passed by the respondent No.3 as contained in Annexure 9, order dated 4-12-1986 passed by the respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure 12 and the order dated 14-10-1986 passed by the respondent No.1 as contained in annexure 15 to the writ petition hereby and whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from fervice. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a constable and at the material time he was acting as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner in the year 1982 was posted at Katras Railway Police Station and at that time a case under section 25-A of the Arms Act was instituted against him. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner at the relevant time was placed under suspension and both the departmental proceeding as also the the criminal case continued simultaneously against him. The petitioner during the period when the enquiry was being conducted on account of illness of his wife he was at his native place upon having obtained leave in this regard, wherefor he applied for leave from time to time. 4. According to the petitioner, the witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding in his absence. The petitioner has further submitted that no copy of the enquiry report was handed over to him in order to enable him to file an effective appeal/representation. 5. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the case of the respondents, on the other hand, is chat the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his own case and as a matter of fact he had knowledge of the proceedings and/or continuation thereof. It is the further qase of the respondents that the petitioner was declared as an absconder and the proceeding was, therefore, held ex-pane. 6. Without going into the merits of the case as to whether the department ought to have proceeded ex-pane against the petitioner or not, this writ petition, in my opinion, can be disposed of on short question. 7. Mr. S. N. Jha, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State, conceded that there is nothing on record to show that a copy of the enquiry report was furninished to the petitioner. 7. Mr. S. N. Jha, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State, conceded that there is nothing on record to show that a copy of the enquiry report was furninished to the petitioner. The point with regard to the non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report had specifically been taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal in the fallowing terms :- "that it is the height of callousness on the part of the disciplinary authority that it or any body in behalf of it has not so far offered me a copy of findings of the learned conducting officers nor was any opportunity allowed or offer even to see the findings, if any recorded by any conducting officer. " 8. From a perusal of the appellate order as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ petition it appears that the respondent No.2 did not consider that aspect of the matter at all. The respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 4-2-1986 merely stated that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to participate in the enquiry in spite of several opportunities having been granted to him. In this connection reference may be made to Appendix 49 of Volume III of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978. Clause 8 (iv) of the aforementioned Appendix 49 reads as follows :- "a copy of the findings of the conducting officer should be given to the delinquent without delay. It is not necessary to give to him an opportunity of second show cause on the penalty proposed as laid down in the 44th Amendment in 1976 of the Article 311 of Indian Constitution. " 9. Clauses 9 and 12 of the said rules are also relevant, which reads as follows :- "9. The special attention of all officers is drawn to the rule reproduced on the margin, which is prescribed under the authority of the government of India. In accordance therewith they should base their findings and orders punishment upon facts and inferences appearing in or deduced from the records, and judgment should not contain confidential matters or deal with persons or topics not directly concerned with or at issue in the proceedings. In accordance therewith they should base their findings and orders punishment upon facts and inferences appearing in or deduced from the records, and judgment should not contain confidential matters or deal with persons or topics not directly concerned with or at issue in the proceedings. Copy of orders to be given to a delinquent which concerns him personally,-As a rule only the substance of decision should be communicated to the officer eoncerned, with such statement of the ground apon which it is based as may be necessary for information of the officer and may be considered expedient having regard to the circumstances of the case. Despatches from or to the Government of india and conespondaoce indicating a difference of opinion between the State Government and the Government of India should only be communicated with the express permission of the Government of India. " "12. These orders must receive careful compliance and Deputy Inspectors general should ste that they are properly observed in proceedings coming before them. Non-compliance with the instructions render proceedings liable to be set aside on appeal or revision and government have expressly declared that the above rules must be observed in the most literal manner as they constitute the least safeguard against improper punishment that officers in superior service can reasonably demand. The Gov ;rnnunt has likewise laid down that in a case in which the dismissal of an officer of the status of sub-Inspector is involved the proceedings should usually be conducted by the Superintendent in person, unless for good reason, such as the remoteness of the place, it is really necessary to depute some other responsible officer to examine the witnesses on the spot or to make personal investigations in the locality. In such cases that officer must observe all the provisions of Rule 828 of the Police manual and come to a clear finding on each charge. " 10. From a perusal of the aformentioned Rules there is absolutely no doubt that a copy of the enquiry report is required to be given to the delinquent officer so as to give him an opportunity to prefer an effective appeal. 11. As there has been a violation of the aforementioned procedure, in my opinion, the appellate order as also the revisional order as contained in Annexures 12 and 15 to the writ petition cannot be sustained. 12. 11. As there has been a violation of the aforementioned procedure, in my opinion, the appellate order as also the revisional order as contained in Annexures 12 and 15 to the writ petition cannot be sustained. 12. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 12 and 15 to the writ petition are hereby quashed and the respondent No.2 is directed to hear the petitioner afresh as an appellate authority after a copy of the enquiry report is furnished to the petitioner. It is needless to point out that before the appellate authority the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions which have been raised in this writ petition. 13. In view of the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service as early as in 1985 the respondent No.2 shall dispose of the case of the petitioner at an early date and preferably within a period of three months after receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The petitioner, if he so desires, may file an application before the appellate authority for being heard in person and if such an application is filed the respondent No.2 shell hear the petitioner in person. Petition allowed.