Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. The present application has been filed by the sole petitioner, inter alia, for quashing the Office Order 405/82 dated September 17, 1982 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Deputy Inspector General of Police (C.I.D.) which has been communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 2433 dated September 30, 1982 and has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. By this order, on certain charges levelled against the petitioner he has been punished with the forfeiture of the two increments under Rule 828(C) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1971 . 2. At the material time the petitioner was posted as a Constable driver in the Vigilance Cell under the Bihar State Electricity Board. Being persuaded by certain allegations Respondent No. 3 i.e., D.I.G. Police directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of the vehicle W.M.C. 215 to another Constable driver, namely, Vishwanath Singh. Thereafter, on April 15, 1982 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice issued by the respondent Superintendent of Police to show cause as to why appropriate disciplinary action be not taken against him since there were some serious discrepancies in the mile metre of the vehicle W.M.C. 215 which was put under his charge. Though the petitioner filed his show cause before the respondent Superintendent of Police, he did not proceed any further in the matter. Petitioner was served with another show cause notice issued by respondent No. 3 on certain charges relating to mile metre of the said vehicle and requiring him to show cause as to why his increments be not forfeited. Under the provisions of the said Rule 828(c) the petitioner filed his show cause. 3. It has been asserted in the writ application by the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of his show cause certain enquiries were held behind his back and after taking into account the materials collected during those enquiries he has been subjected to punishment as is evident from the impugned order (Annexure-7). 4. 3. It has been asserted in the writ application by the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of his show cause certain enquiries were held behind his back and after taking into account the materials collected during those enquiries he has been subjected to punishment as is evident from the impugned order (Annexure-7). 4. It has been submitted by the petitioner that keeping in view the statutory requirements contemplated under Rule 828(c) of the Bihar Police Manual as well as the basic principles of natural justice, he should have been afforded an opportunity for participating in the enquiry held for scrutinising the charges levelled against him and should have been also given adequate opportunity to defend himself by way of cross-examining the witnesses examined by the Enquiring Officer as also to defend himself by leading oral or documentary evidence as necessitated under the circumstances. Rule 828(c) of the Bihar Police Manual runs as under: "In case in which forfeiture of increment is proposed to be an adequate punishment, this may be inflicted without formal enquiry in the form of a proceeding but every such matter shall state clearly: firstly, the charges against the defaulter; then his answers to each charge, one by one; and lastly, the finding upon each charge of the officer inflicting the punishment. In such cases, the Superintendent need not hold the enquiry himself, nor shall the delinquent have the right to appear before him, but he has the right to appear before the officer deputed to record the evidence and to take his defence; and such officer, who shall not be below the rank of Inspector, shall come to a clear finding on each charge and shall submit the record with his recommendations to the Superintendent for orders." From a bare reading of the said rule it is apparent that every delinquent has a right to appear before the Enquiring Officer and to take his defence. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that neither he was granted opportunity of appearing at the enquiry nor was he allowed to exercise his right of defence. But the respondents have not even cared to file any counter-affidavit disclosing their stand either on facts or the law. No material has been placed before me in order to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner. But the respondents have not even cared to file any counter-affidavit disclosing their stand either on facts or the law. No material has been placed before me in order to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner. On a reading of the impugned order (Annexure-7) it is apparent that the materials collected during the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police have been used for awarding punishment to the petitioner. 5 Under these circumstances, I am left with no option but to quash the order as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application by which the petitioner has been punished by forfeiture of the increments but I make it clear that I am not quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings and it is being left open to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost. 6. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.