ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.05.2009 passed by the respondent no.3 pertaining to infliction of punishment of award of black mark for the alleged misconduct and the order by the appellate authority dated 15.02.2010. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, that while the petitioner was continuing as officer In-charge of Amlabad Outpost, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 23.12.2008 for the alleged misconduct for not issuing release order of transfer to one Vishawanth Singh. Similarly, other three police officers In-charge including the petitioner were charge-sheeted for the same misconduct for not relieving the police personnel within 24 hours. It has also averred in the writ application that three police officers In-charge namely Ramlal Ram, Chunmun Singh and the petitioner were charge-sheeted for the same misconduct. In pursuance to the aforesaid charge, inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry officer submitted the report. On the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner was found guilty partially and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report has imposed punishment dated 31.05.2009 the infliction of punishment of award of black mark. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. respondent no. 2 and the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 15.02.2010 in a very cryptic and non-reasoned manner. 3. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the proceeding, no enquiry report supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority while analysing the inquiry report differed with the findings of the inquiry officer and without assigning reasons for his difference and without giving petitioner any opportunity of hearing has imposed a major punishment of black mark which has grossly vitiated disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated employees like Chunmun Singh who was proceeded on the self same charges has been inflicted with the minor punishment of censure so the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the doctrine of parity of punishment so far as the impugned order of punishment is concerned. 4. Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated employees like Chunmun Singh who was proceeded on the self same charges has been inflicted with the minor punishment of censure so the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the doctrine of parity of punishment so far as the impugned order of punishment is concerned. 4. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel for the respondents J.C. to A.G. has assiduously advanced his argument by submitting that punishment considering the gravity of charges imposed on petitioner does not warrant interference in the instant case. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit by advancing in the argument. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the inquiry proceeding the petitioner has been found partially guilty of the offence therefore the punishment is commensurate to the gravity of charges. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the inquiry report has grossly been prejudiced to the petitioner, which has materially affected the outcome of the departmental proceeding. Moreover, there has been procedural irregularities. Since no second show cause notice had been issued prior to the infliction of punishment. The impugned order of punishment, pertains to awarding of black mark, which is a major punishment. Police Manual in Rule 824 inter alia envisages about the punishment which may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of an below the rank of Inspector. "Rule 828 of the Police Manual reads as follows:- 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 Servants Enquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction shall be passed on 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 writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. (c) In case in which, forfeiture of increment is proposed to be an adequate punishment, this may be inflicted without formal enquiry in the form of a proceeding but every such matter shall state clearly; first, the charges against the defaulter; then his answers to each charge, one by one; and lastly, the finding upon each charge of the officer inflicting the punishment. In such cases, the Superintendent need not hold the enquiry himself, nor shall the delinquent have the right to appear before him, but he has the right to appear before the officer deputed to record the evidence and to take his defence; and such officer, who shall not be below the rank of inspector, shall come to a clear finding on each charge and shall submit the record with his recommendations to the Superintendent for orders. (d) These provisions shall not be followed when the Governor is assured that it is not possible to do this in the interest of the safety of the State according to Article 311(2) of Indian Constitution or it is not possible to follow these provisions entirely and there is no suspicion that in not following them the accused may not get justice. Whenever such a possibility arises, the officer who is competent to remove or reduce delinquent in the rank shall formally give orders as decided by the Governor which shall be considered final." 6. The impugned order of punishment awarding of black marks so far as impugned order of punishment of awarding of black marks is concerned, there has been violation of principle of natural justice in the conduct of disciplinary proceeding but in the meantime almost 7 years have elapsed from the date of imposition of punishment therefore, it would not be appropriate in the interest of justice to remit the matter to the authorities for denovo inquiry from the stage of supply of the inquiry report but the case of the petitioner which is squarely covered with another similarly situated persons namely Chunmun Singh who has been granted minor punishment and the petitioner is entitled to the same parity of treatment. In this respect, judgment of the Apex Court may be referred to parity of punishment in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , in particular paragraph 9, which is quoted herein below:- “9. In this respect, judgment of the Apex Court may be referred to parity of punishment in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , in particular paragraph 9, which is quoted herein below:- “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” 7. In view of the reasons stated in foregoing paragraphs and as well as logical sequitur to the dictum of the Apex Court, the impugned order dated 31.05.2009 being affirmed by the Appellate Authority is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on the question of quantum of punishment strictly in accordance with rules within a reasonable time preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Petition disposed of.