Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been served with a punishment of withholding of increment for two years, which is equivalent to three black marks by the impugned order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Dhanbad as contained in Annexure-7. The appellate authority-cum-D.I.G (Railway), Ranchi vide order dated 26.12.2003 as contained in Annexure-9, has affirmed the original order of punishment. Both these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was, a Havildar in the police force at the relevant point of time, posted at G.R.P, Dhanbad when he was served with a charge-sheet contained at Annexure-4 for having unauthorizedly remained in absence from duty without any information or prior sanction of leave from 1.12.1999. Other charges also related to his absence from duty without proper information and for having avoided on being duty in the forthcoming elections of Bihar Vidhan Sabha. Despite being communicated through letter dated 27.01.2000, he did not appear before the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad and it was alleged in the charge-sheet that such unauthorized absence on his part to avoid being on duty, is reflective of serious misconduct of indiscipline, negligence in performing duty, disobedience of the orders of the higher authorities and being unworthy of a member of the police force. According to the petitioner, he furnished a detailed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet contained at Annexure-5 giving reasons for his absence that he was suffering from Tuberclosis in the aforesaid period. An inquiry was thereafter conducted by the Inspector of Police, (Rail) Dhanbad. During the course of inquiry, the doctor who had treated him, had also deposed that he was in indoor treatment for certain period of time on account of having suffered from suspected Tuberclosis. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the conclusion of the inquiry, no inquiry report was served upon him nor any show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority-cum-Superintendent of Police, (Rail) Dhanbad indicating the proposed punishment. The impugned order has been thereafter passed, which is in the nature of major punishment without following the procedure of conduct of disciplinary proceeding wherein the issuance of second show-cause notice and service of inquiry report is a sine qua non before any order of punishment is passed by the disciplinary authority. The impugned order has been thereafter passed, which is in the nature of major punishment without following the procedure of conduct of disciplinary proceeding wherein the issuance of second show-cause notice and service of inquiry report is a sine qua non before any order of punishment is passed by the disciplinary authority. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 and also in the case of Union of India and Ors. & S.K. Kapoor reported in 2011 (4) SCC 589 . According to him, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, is that the materials which are being used for imposing punishment, should be furnished to the delinquent in order to allow him to defend himself against the proposed punishment after submission of inquiry report and before disciplinary authority passes the order of punishment. 3. In such circumstances, the appellate order, which has confirmed the original order even after taking into account the genuine grounds of unauthorized absence of the petitioner on account of having suffered from Tuberclosis, is also bad in law for the same reasons. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the specific statements made in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 in the writ petition regarding non-service of inquiry report and non -issuance of second show-cause notice have not been specifically denied in the statements made by the respondents in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit. What has been annexed in support of the submission made in the said paragraph by the respondents is, the defence statement submitted by the petitioner before conducting officer and not a reply to the second show-cause notice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent -State, however, supports the impugned order of punishment and the appellate order. It is submitted that the petitioner had been avoiding duty and absenting from duty without any authorized leave or sufficient cause. He was proceeded against in departmental proceeding after issuance of charge-sheet by the competent authority-cum-Superintendent of Police, (Rail), Dhanbad. The materials adduced during the course of inquiry were considered by the inquiry officer and the finding of guilt was recorded in the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. He was proceeded against in departmental proceeding after issuance of charge-sheet by the competent authority-cum-Superintendent of Police, (Rail), Dhanbad. The materials adduced during the course of inquiry were considered by the inquiry officer and the finding of guilt was recorded in the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority has taken into account all these evidences, exhibits and the documents produced as also the report of the inquiry officer to arrive at a finding that the petitioner's misconduct has been fully established and he deserves to be imposed with the punishment of withholding of two increments for two years, which is equivalent to three black marks. The proceeding, therefore, does not suffer from any procedural errors or errors of law as well as fact. In a writ petition, this Court should not interfere in the finding of facts in a disciplinary proceeding arrived at against a delinquent employee. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. The petitioner admittedly had remained absent for certain period of time starting from 01.12.1999. He was served with the charge-sheet contained at Annexure-4 dated 29.02.2000. During course of inquiry conducted thereafter before conducting officer-cum-Inspector of Police, Rail, Dhanbad, material evidence was produced on the behalf of the petitioner in his defence and other prescriptions as well as certificates of his treatment for a certain period as an indoor patient. Thereafter the petitioner pleaded that he was treated as outdoor patient. However, the inquiry officer found the charges established against him. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment has been imposed, which is in the nature of a major punishment as it is equivalent to three black marks as per the Police Manual Rule, 824. However, the procedure for imposing major punishment also contemplates issuance of second show cause notice alongwith a copy of the inquiry report attached thereto, indicating the proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case where the petitioner has made a categorical statement that neither second show-cause notice nor any copy of the inquiry report has been served upon him, the respondents' statement in the counter affidavit at paragraph 21 is only an evasive reply and not specific denial. In the instant case where the petitioner has made a categorical statement that neither second show-cause notice nor any copy of the inquiry report has been served upon him, the respondents' statement in the counter affidavit at paragraph 21 is only an evasive reply and not specific denial. Annexure-D referred to in the said paragraph and annexed to the counter affidavit is, the only last defense statement furnished by the delinquent employee before the conducting officer and not in the nature of a reply to the second show-cause notice. 7. In such circumstances, in view of the well settled ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) and followed in other subsequent cases, the disciplinary proceeding appears to be vitiated in law in the absence of the service of second show-cause notice and inquiry report upon the petitioner. In such circumstances, the decision making process has suffered from errors of law and requires to be interfered in exercise of power under the judicial review by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order i.e. original order of punishment dated 04.02.2003 and appellate order dated 26.12.2003 are quashed. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is going to retire. However, as it appears that the petitioner is still in service, therefore, it is open to the respondents to proceed from the stage of second show-cause notice after furnishing a copy of inquiry report upon the petitioner in the department proceeding in accordance with law, if they choose to do so. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.