ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - In this writ application, the petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 17.6.2003 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent no.4) whereby and where under an order of censure been issued against the petitioner with a further direction to the respondent to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of April, 2003 as well as to delete the word "Nindan" in the service book. 2. The petitioner who is police personnel while being posted at Jamshedpur had taken leave from 1.3.2003 to 31.3.2003 which was sanctioned but subsequently on account of settlement of marriage of his sister the petitioner gave an application for extension of leave for the aforesaid period of 30 days and after expiry of 30 days the petitioner submitted his joining but since then he not been paid the salary of April, 2003. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Region, Chaibasa, which is pending till date. 3. However, subsequently an order of punishment of censure was passed by respondent no.4-Superintendent of Police but the salary of 30 days is still pending. 4. Initially, the writ application was filed with a prayer for a direction upon the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for releasing the salary for the month of April, 2003. Subsequently a counter-affidavit regarding punishment of censure was filed by the respondent which is annexed as Annexure-A. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an amendment petition and the same was allowed. The validity or otherwise of the order dated 17.3.2006 passed by the respondent no.4 is also the subject matter of the writ application. 5. Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.II appearing for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 28.3.2003 was passed by respondent no.4 without considering the principles of natural justice as prior to issuance of the said order, no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It also been submitted that in the impugned order dated 17.6.2003 which was supposed to be with respect to consideration of the explanation of the petitioner but the respondent no.4 had merely considered the extension of leave made by the petitioner dated 17.6.2003. It also been submitted that in the impugned order dated 17.6.2003 which was supposed to be with respect to consideration of the explanation of the petitioner but the respondent no.4 had merely considered the extension of leave made by the petitioner dated 17.6.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his claim referred to para-13 of the counter affidavit which speaks of enhancement of leave of the petitioner being rejected and payment of one month salary was subsequently withheld by the respondent as the leave availed by the petitioner was found to be illegal. 7. Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C. II, on the other hand, submitted that since the punishment was minor in nature in terms of Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual which contains both major as well as minor punishment, no notice in writing was required to be issued to the petitioner in terms of the provisions enumerated under Rule 828 (b) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to non-issuance of any notice prior to infliction of censure not been disputed or denied by the respondent. In the reply to the interlocutory application (I.A. No.1750 of 2015) at paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit the request made by the petitioner for leave was rejected as the same was found unsatisfactory and punishment of censure was given to the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, the respondents themselves have admitted that the extension for leave of the petitioner was under consideration at the time of issuance of impugned order dated 17.6.2003. 10. Rule 838 of the Police Manual is with regard to minor punishment and the 2nd proviso clearly indicate that in awarding censure, 'the concerned officer should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation and orders should then be passed'. 11. The contention of learned J.C. to Sr. S.C. II that no notice or explanation is required to be issued or sought for is negated in view of the clear language of Rule 838 of the Police Manual which speaks that the concerned officer should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation and, orders of censure shall then be passed. The provision uses the word 'should and not 'may' and therefore it mandates the authorities to seek an explanation and then pass necessary orders. The provision uses the word 'should and not 'may' and therefore it mandates the authorities to seek an explanation and then pass necessary orders. Admittedly, no prior opportunity of explanation been sought for from the petitioner and in such circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.6.2003 cannot be sustained. 12. As a cumulative result of the discussion made, the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the respondent no.4 inflicting punishment of censure upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. So far as question of payment of salary for the month of April, 2003 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to represent before the authorities concerned who shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in terms of the provision of the Police Manual. 14. The writ application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Application disposed of.