Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad and J JJ. 1. The present writ application it directed against the orders contained in annexures 4, 6 and 8 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Revisional Authority and the appellate authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting punishment of dismissal against the petitioner, who was a literate constable in the district police posted at Nawadah. 2. It is contended by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner that a proceeding was started against the petitioner on the charge of absence without leave. At the initial stage, the petitioner was given notice and he, filed his show cause and the proceeding was conducted by one Mahegh prasad, Dy. Superintendent of Police. Later on, his transfer from Nawadah, the entire file relating to proceeding was returned back to the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah on 5 9.1983 for appointment of some other conducting officer. On 19.9.83 the Superintendent of Police, Nawabah entrusted the proceeding to some other officer In this regard learned Counsel referred to the order-sheet of the proceeding, a photo copy of which has been annexed as annexure a to the first counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 3. It has been contended that thereafter as it appears from the order sheet, the notices were directed to be issued to the petitioner as well as to some witnesses, but there is nothing to show that the said notices were served upon the petitioner. In paragraph 15 of the writ application the petitioner inter alia, has stated that since after the transfer of the then conducting officer he met the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah several times for getting the next date in the proceeding, but he could not get the same. Further, it is stated that he was told that he would get notice of the date of hearing in the proceeding, but he did not receive any notice and on 17.8.84 all on a sudden a copy of the impugned order was served upon him. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel referred to the statement made in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, in which it is stated that the disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice on 18.6.84 to the petitioner against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel referred to the statement made in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, in which it is stated that the disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice on 18.6.84 to the petitioner against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. But he did not show cause in pursuance thereto and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the order dismissing him from service. 5. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the second show-cause notice was never served, nor he was ever given a copy of the enquiry report. In this regard he referred to the further statement made in paragraph 15, which read as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . . . It is relevant to mention that before imposing penalty he was not given an opportunity to show cause on the proposed penalty as required under law besides he was not served with the copy of the Enquiry Report, non-service of which before imposing penalty makes the order of dismissal invalid and violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner did not know before 17.8.84, as to when the proceeding was conducted and completed. " 6. Thus, it has been submitted that the entire proceeding was conducted without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and in violation of the requirement of law as contained in rule 848 of the Police manual read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India 7. Rule 828 of the Police Manual deals with major punishment which is quoted hereunder for ready reference :- "rule 828. Infliction of major punishments (a) of the punishments permitted by rule 824, the items in serials (a) to (f) of that rule shall be regarded as major punishments, and shall be inflicted by an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent, (b) without prejudice to the provision of the Public Servant Enquiries act, 1950, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or redaction shall be passed oa any police officer (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court) unless he has been informed in notice of the ground on which it is proposied to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself (see appendix 49 ). " In this connection, sub-clause (iv) of clause 8 of Appendix 49 may be referred to, which is quoted hereunder : "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 the Indian Constitution. " Learned Counsel submitted that the facts stated in paragraph 15 regarding non-service of notices after change of conducting officer or against the proposed punishment have not been denied. 8 In this regard learned counsel for the State referred to the statement made in paragraph 4 of the second supplementary counter-affidavit in which it is stated that the second show-cause notice and a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner through registered post which has not been registered back to the department and thus, an inference is sought to be drawn that the same has been received by the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the contention of (he petitioner that he had not been served with the second show-cause notice and the enquiry report before passing of the final order of dismissal is totally unacceptable. 9. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. The facts stated in paragraph 15 in so far as non-service of notice since after the appointment of the another conducting officer on 19.9.83 has not been denied in any of the aforementioned two paragraphs referred to the learned counsel for the State. In both the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit referred to above the statement has been made only with with regard to second show-cause notice and too I find that there is no statement to the effect that the second show-cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner. However, as it is not denied that the petitioner was not given any notice since after appointment of another conducting officer on 19.9.93 in my opinion, the petitioner has been deprived of reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the departmental enquiry Accordingly, the order of punishment suffers from the vice of violation of principle of natural justice besides the rule 828 of the Police Manual referred to above. 10. 10. Mr Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the appellate authority and the revisional authority before, whom also this point regarding non-service of notices since after the appointment of another conducting officer was raised, but none of the said two authorities have considered this aspect. He also submitted that from reading of of the order passed by the said two authorities as contained in annexures 6 and 8 respectively it would appear that none of the two authorities have have considered the points raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal as well as in the memorials as contained in annexures 5 and 7 In my opinion, there appears to be some substance in the submission of mr. Pandey. From perusal of the said two orders (annexures 6 and 8) it is difficult to hold that the said authorities have considered all the point raised before them. Accordingly, the said two orders also cannot be sustained and all the three impugned orders as contained in annexures 4, 6 and 8 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order after complying with the principle of natural justice and in accordance with law. 11. As the impugned orders have been quashed on technical ground i do not consider it expedient to pass any order regarding the extent of benefit to which the petitioner will be entitled by virtue of the same. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of managing Director of E C I L, Hyderabad v B. Karunakar, 1993 (3) SLJ 193. I direct that the question as to whether the employee is extended the benefit accrued from the quashing of the impugned orders shall be dependent upon the result of the culmination of the proceeding and depending on the findings given in the same The competent authority shall pass necessary orders in this regard as well Accordingly, the writ application is allowed with the aforementioned directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Allowed