JUDGEMENT 1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in para 4 of the writ application. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. 3. The time was allowed to the State for filing counter affidavit by order dated 3.2.2011 in a case which has been filed in the year, 2004. Still no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Petitioner had been appointed as Constable on 22.8.1988. After ten years of his appointment, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for the charge that on 15.5.1998 he demanded a command certificate from Sultan Khan and threatened him to kill and also to set fire to the police line. In this regard, Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 99/98 has also been registered against the petitioner and charge- sheet submitted. 5. Petitioners grievance is that after initiation of the departmental proceeding, without asking any show cause and without supplying copy of exhibits relied upon by the department for prosecuting the petitioner, as well as without giving any opportunity to examine the witnesses, the departmental proceeding was conducted and finally punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner. The dismissal order was challenged by filing an appeal before the D.I.G., Central Range, Patna. The appellate authority came to this conclusion that allegation made by the petitioner, regarding conducting the departmental proceeding in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, is correct. He was also of this opinion that a severe punishment of dismissal from service has been awarded without conducting the departmental proceeding in a legal and proper manner. He passed an order, whereby finally the order passed in the departmental proceeding awarding punishment of dismissal from service was quashed and a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner on his post, but it was also held that period of dismissal will be treated as break in service and for this period the petitioner will not.be entitled either to receive salary or any allowances. The D.I.G., Central Range, Patna by order dated 24.5.2002 also directed to re-initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and to conduct it in legal manner. 6. The D.I.G., Central Range, Patna by order dated 24.5.2002 also directed to re-initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and to conduct it in legal manner. 6. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the D.I.G., Central Range, Patna dated 24.5.2002, whereby the period of dismissal from service has been treated as break in service and for this period no salary or allowances is to be paid to him. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it amounts to imposing punishment without holding a trial. 7. Since the dismissal order passed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding was found to be illegal and a direction was issued for re-initiating a departmental proceeding, there was no reason for Respondent No. 3 for treating the period of dismissal as break in service and also passing an order regarding nonpayment of salary and allowances for this period. This order in itself was an order of punishment without issuing any show cause. 8. Counter affidavit has not been filed in this case denying the ailegations made by the petitioner. Even though there is no counter affidavit apparently this impugned order is illegal. The impugned order is an example of imposing punishment, without conducting a departmental proceeding. Accordingly, it is quashed. The Respondents are directed to treat the period of dismissal as continuity in service with all consequential benefits, which also includes salary and allowances payable to the petitioner for this period. 9. This application is allowed.