JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 3056 dated 11.12.2006 issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby and where under a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. A further prayer has been made for quashing of Memo No. 3102 dated 28.11.2007 issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby and where under the petitioner has been inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the petitioner shall not be paid any salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the adverse entry dated 11.09.2004 made by the respondent no. 5. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner who is a class III employee is posted as a Senior Accounts Clerk in Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Irrigation Division-II, Sikatia, Deoghar. The initial appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk vide Memo No. 1076 dated 15.07.1969. While petitioner was posted during his service tenure at Irrigation Division, Littipara, Pakur, the charge of senior accounts clerk was handed over to the petitioner on retirement of the earlier incumbent on the post. Some anti social elements had ransacked the office and petitioner had duly reported before respondent no. 5 but since no action was being taken the matter was also reported to the officer incharge, Hiranpur Police Station. On account of mental trauma faced by the petitioner, he had proceeded on casual leave for 11.1.2004 and 12.01.2004 and thereafter proceeded on unearned leave from 13.01.2004 to 13.02.2004. The petitioner had again applied for extension of his earned leave from 13.02.2004 to 11.04.2004 and a further extension was sought for till 21.04.2004. When the petitioner joined on 22.04.2004, the same was refused by the respondent no. 4, subsequent to which the petitioner proceeded on casual leave and thereafter on earned leave. The petitioner as it appears was relieved from his place of posting at Irrigation Division, Littipara and was asked to join in the office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar and the joining of the petitioner was not accepted and on request for transfer he was subsequently transferred to Irrigation Division-II, Sikatia vide Memo No. 1923 dated 30.06.2004. The petitioner as it appears was relieved from his place of posting at Irrigation Division, Littipara and was asked to join in the office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar and the joining of the petitioner was not accepted and on request for transfer he was subsequently transferred to Irrigation Division-II, Sikatia vide Memo No. 1923 dated 30.06.2004. The petitioner was served with Memo No.3046 dated 9.12.2006, whereby he was placed under suspension which was issued under Rule 49A of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide Memo No. 3056 dated 11.12.2006, in which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the charges of unauthorized absence, excess money found in the cash chest and misplacing of a Bank Draft. The petitioner was subsequently issued Memo No. 3102 dated 28.11.2007, wherein the petitioner was imposed a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and it was further indicated therein that the petitioner shall not be paid any salary for the period under suspension except the subsistence allowance. 3. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that initiation of departmental proceeding itself is bad in law as the petitioner being a class III employee is a member of subordinate services and is governed by the Bihar & Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1935 and not under the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. It has been submitted that before initiation of a departmental proceeding, no show cause was submitted to the petitioner and even in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was imposed a punishment without serving the enquiry report or a second show cause prior to the order of punishment. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have flagrantly violated the principles of natural justice and in such circumstances therefore the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the respondents had made adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner for an incident, which form part of the charge sheet and at the time when it was entered no departmental proceeding was pending which in itself is bad in law. 5. Mr. He further submits that the respondents had made adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner for an incident, which form part of the charge sheet and at the time when it was entered no departmental proceeding was pending which in itself is bad in law. 5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the acts of prolonged absence of the petitioner and other charges, which were served upon the petitioner, suggests the action on the part of the petitioner as a serious misconduct, for which he was proceeded against departmentally and the enquiry officer had found the charges proved against him. Learned Government Advocate has also disputed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been proceeded against under the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. 6. Apart from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which strikes the foundation of initiation of the departmental proceeding, it appears that a specific assertion has been made by the petitioner that neither the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity to explain his stand with respect to the proposed punishment. The statement made at paragraph 33 of the writ application has neither been denied nor has been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 7. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 , it was held as follows:- "31. .... That being so, the "right to be heard" would be available to the delinquent up to the final stage. This right being a constitutional right of the employee cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment or service rule including rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution". "35. Since the Disciplinary Committee did not give any opportunity of hearing to the appellant before taking a final decision in the matter relating to the findings on the two charges framed against him, the principles of natural justice, as laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra referred to above, were violated". Admittedly, in absence of any denial from the respondents, the petitioner was never given an opportunity to defend himself on account of non submission of the enquiry report as well as the second show cause notice and in such view of the matter, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 3102 dated 28.11.2007 issued by the respondent no. 2, is hereby quashed and set aside. So far as adverse entry made in the service book of the petitioner is concerned, since such allegation already formed part of the charges served upon the petitioner, there was no necessity for entering such remarks without having established the guilt of the petitioner and that too much before initiation of the departmental proceeding itself. In such circumstances, therefore, adverse remarks made in the service record on 11.09.2004 is also quashed. Consequent to the discussions made herein above, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 3102 dated 28.11.2007, by which the petitioner was given a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as well as the adverse entry dated 11.09.2004 made in the service book is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has already retired on 31.10.2008, respondent no.1-Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, is directed to take necessary steps to make available to the petitioner the arrears of salary during the suspension period as well as the other benefits, which have not been paid to the petitioner on account of order of punishment as well as adverse entry made in the service book expeditiously and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.